Why Even Non-Lawyers Write Like Lawyers: Unpacking the "Magic Spell" of Legal Language

Redacción HC
26/08/2024

In a world where legal clarity is essential for justice and democratic transparency, a recent study reveals a surprising twist: even non-lawyers instinctively write laws using complex, ritualistic language — the kind often blamed for making legal texts inaccessible. Published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by researchers from the University of Chicago, University of Melbourne, and MIT, the study delves deep into why legalese persists, even when no legal training is involved.

This finding not only reshapes our understanding of how legal language evolves but also sheds light on cognitive and social forces that prioritize authority and tradition over clarity.

When Writing Laws Feels Like Casting Spells

Legal documents are often characterized by syntactic complexity: long dependencies, nested clauses, and formal tone. But is this just a result of tradition and editing practices—or something more ingrained?

To explore this, the researchers tested two major hypotheses:

1. Copy-and-edit hypothesis: Legalese exists because people simply replicate and tweak existing complex templates.
2. Magic-spell hypothesis: Writers deliberately choose complex syntax to evoke formality and authority — much like casting a spell.

The findings? The spell theory holds more weight.

"Even people with no legal training tended to produce complex syntax when writing laws from scratch," noted co-author Edward Gibson of MIT.

Inside the Study: Corpus Analysis and Behavioral Experiments

Analyzing Millions of Words

The first step involved analyzing a corpus of ~59 million words from legal documents, compared to six reference genres including news, fiction, and academic writing. Legal texts stood out for their high density of center-embedded clauses and long syntactic dependencies — both hallmarks of difficult prose.

Experiment 1: Write Your Own Law

In the first behavioral experiment, 286 non-lawyers were asked to:

• Write either a law or a narrative, starting from scratch or editing a draft.
• Researchers measured the frequency of syntactic complexity in each case.

The result? Laws contained significantly more complex structures — regardless of whether participants were drafting or editing.

Experiment 2: Simplify It for Outsiders

A second experiment asked participants to write a law and then explain it to a foreign audience. When translating their own laws into simpler terms, participants actively reduced complexity, confirming that they knew how to write more clearly — but reverted to complex legalese for the "official" version.

“It’s a cognitive shift. The act of law-writing triggers a performance,” explains Eric Martínez, lead author. “People instinctively mimic formal conventions, even if it hurts clarity.”

Why Legalese Persists—Even Among Laypeople

It's Not Just Lawyers

One key insight from the study is that legal complexity isn’t limited to professionals. Non-specialists — given a law-writing task — tend to adopt the same ornate structures. This suggests legalese may stem less from training or institutional habit, and more from social expectations.

Performative Language and Power

Syntactic complexity may serve a performative function, lending laws an air of ritual, authority, and permanence. Much like a religious chant or ceremonial speech, the formality conveys weight — even if it sacrifices readability.

What This Means for Policy and Public Understanding

Laws Can Be Clearer—And Still Be Legal

The study directly challenges the idea that complex structure is necessary for legal precision. It shows that:

• Legal meaning can be preserved even when simplified.
• Many syntactic features are added for stylistic effect, not functional clarity.

This opens the door to reform in legal drafting, promoting clearer and more accessible laws.

Recommendations from the Authors

1. Adopt “plain language” standards for legal drafting, especially in citizen-facing documents.
2. Develop tools to flag unnecessary syntactic complexity in legislative writing.
3. Train lawmakers and legal drafters in effective, transparent communication.

“Legal documents don’t have to be magical incantations,” says Martínez. “They can be precise, effective — and still human-readable.”

Beyond the Courtroom: Why It Matters

In many countries, especially across Latin America, legal texts remain a major barrier to public understanding. Citizens often rely on intermediaries — lawyers, notaries, bureaucrats — to interpret rights and responsibilities hidden behind technical jargon. This study lends scientific weight to growing demands for democratic clarity in lawmaking.

Clear laws promote:

• Access to justice
• Civic engagement
• Institutional trust

Conclusion: Demystifying the Law Begins with Syntax

The persistence of legalese isn’t simply the product of bad habits — it may be a deep-seated social reflex, one that even laypeople unconsciously replicate. But by understanding these cognitive tendencies, we can design better legal systems — ones that inform, rather than confuse.

The next time you read a clause you can't parse, remember: it might not be accidental. But it doesn't have to be that way.

Call to action: Share this article with legal professionals, policymakers, or educators interested in legal reform. Clarity is a choice — let’s choose it.

Topics of interest

Academia