Legal writing carries a long memory. Latin phrases, antique constructions, and inherited jargon still echo through briefs and opinions. Some of these terms remain useful. Some do not. The challenge for the modern legal writer is knowing the difference and tailoring language to the audience without sacrificing clarity.
Archaic or Latin terms are most defensible when they name a concept that has no clean English equivalent or where the Latin term is itself the doctrine. Res judicata, stare decisis, and mens rea are not stylistic flourishes; they are technical labels with settled meanings. Translating them can create confusion rather than clarity. In those situations, the Latin earns its place.
Problems arise when archaic language is used as ornament rather than necessity. Words like hereinabove, aforementioned, or therewith rarely add precision. More often, they slow the reader and create unnecessary distance. Legal writing already asks a lot of its audience; it should not require a mental glossary to parse a simple point.
Audience matters. A brief directed to a general trial court or a mixed legal–lay readership should err on the side of plain English. Clarity builds trust. But context can justify a different choice. When addressing a highly experienced, academically inclined, or demonstrably erudite judge, selective use of Latin or traditional phrasing may be appropriate. Selective references or old-fashioned terms can be persuasive if they are appropriate.
Even then, restraint is essential. The goal is precision, not performance. Overuse of archaic language can feel like posturing and risks alienating even sophisticated readers. A judge does not need to be impressed. The judge needs to understand. And the judge needs to understand quickly and easily as he (or she) has a lot of work to do.
The guiding principle is simple: use archaic or Latin terms only when they do real work. If an English alternative is clearer, choose it. Good legal writing honors tradition without being trapped by it.
writer @ law 