What do you think?
Rate this book
The Party of the First Part: The Curious World of Legalese
The Eats, Shoots & Leaves of legalese, this witty narrative journey through the letter of the law offers something for language lovers and legal eagles alike This clever, user-friendly discourse exposes the simple laws lurking behind decorative, unnecessary, and confusing legal language. For better or for worse, the instruction manual for today's world is written by lawyers. Everyone needs to understand this manual--but lawyers persist in writing it in language no one can possibly decipher.
Why accuse someone of making "material misstatements of fact," when you could just call them a liar? What's the point of a "last" will and testament if, presumably, every will is your last? Did you know that "law" derives from a Norse term meaning "that which is laid down"? So tell your boss to stop laying down the law--it already is.
The debate over Plain vs. Precision English rages on in courtrooms, boardrooms, and, yes, even bedrooms. Here, Adam Freedman explores the origins of legalese, interprets archaic phrasing (witnesseth!), explains obscure and oddly named laws, and disputes the notion that lawyers are any smarter than the rest of us when judged solely on their briefs. (A brief, by the way, is never so.)
Why accuse someone of making "material misstatements of fact," when you could just call them a liar? What's the point of a "last" will and testament if, presumably, every will is your last? Did you know that "law" derives from a Norse term meaning "that which is laid down"? So tell your boss to stop laying down the law--it already is.
The debate over Plain vs. Precision English rages on in courtrooms, boardrooms, and, yes, even bedrooms. Here, Adam Freedman explores the origins of legalese, interprets archaic phrasing (witnesseth!), explains obscure and oddly named laws, and disputes the notion that lawyers are any smarter than the rest of us when judged solely on their briefs. (A brief, by the way, is never so.)
- GenresLawNonfictionWriting
256 pages, Hardcover
First published September 4, 2007
8 people are currently reading
85 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
December 11, 2025
3.5
This book was very witty and fun for the topic, the author has a voice which keeps the reader engaged even through the slog of legalese.
I have always approached the idea of plan language from a scientific writing perspective. Much like legalese in scientific writing you are encouraged to write in passive voice and often use confusing terms for the sake of “accuracy”. I have long held the belief that you are not promoting accuracy when you make a piece of writing confusing you are just being pretentious.
Sure there are times where you need to use a more technical term but those times can still be made clear and understandable.
This was a surface level exploration for sure, I think there are important things to note on how class and white elitism impact why legalese is this way. I am curious with this book being published in 2007 how, if at all the precision vs plain language schools have changed and shifted. Especially with all the online “terms and conditions” and other contracts were near constantly signing in the modern age
This book was very witty and fun for the topic, the author has a voice which keeps the reader engaged even through the slog of legalese.
I have always approached the idea of plan language from a scientific writing perspective. Much like legalese in scientific writing you are encouraged to write in passive voice and often use confusing terms for the sake of “accuracy”. I have long held the belief that you are not promoting accuracy when you make a piece of writing confusing you are just being pretentious.
Sure there are times where you need to use a more technical term but those times can still be made clear and understandable.
This was a surface level exploration for sure, I think there are important things to note on how class and white elitism impact why legalese is this way. I am curious with this book being published in 2007 how, if at all the precision vs plain language schools have changed and shifted. Especially with all the online “terms and conditions” and other contracts were near constantly signing in the modern age
January 23, 2022
A nifty little book. I picked it up after I read Judge Frank Easterbrook's suggestion that it be in every lawyer's library. For the most part, it is a fun little treatise and is persuasive as to its central premise--that legal writers should write intelligible and easily understood prose in "plain" English. It whitters on a little bit though when it discusses futurism, the internet, etc. That section sounds "off" for some reason.
May 19, 2019
A fun, quick read!
June 27, 2020
Great! Insight into law jargon! Love it
January 27, 2022
A fun read. If not that deep.
March 26, 2008
When I told my 2L friend Sarah I was reading a book that was suppose to help me understand Legalese, she laughed and said good luck, pointing out that she is in law school and has tried several books, it's not that simple. Tru-dat. However, we both seemed to misunderstand the language, which (amusingly enough) is exactly what this book is about.
This is not a dictionary or a decipher code that will magically make you understand that next contract you are signing, but it does make you understand legalese. That is, it allows you to understand why legalese is the way that it is. And knowing is half the battle!
The book was surprisingly (though had I given it more previous thought it would not have been so surprisingly) full of linguistic material. Afterall, having taken linguistics I know, legalese is a sub-language. (or whatever that the term for that is, I forget at the moment) And now I know why.
Basically when law began it was supposed to be so the average person could understand it. Then with boilerplate and all (read Chapter One and Two) legal documents ceased changing for fear of mucking up perfectly good laws, while the English language went on and changed as it will, and does constantly do. That of course is only the beginning. Then you get the people who feel that Latin makes the law sound better or is more precise. Which Freedman had me convinced, after only a few paragraphs, is flawed logic. Even if we lacked a word precise enough we could always make one up that was appropriate. Hell, I know plenty of authors and inventors that do it all the time.
I think though that I am getting off point here. This is simply a review of the book which I do recommend, with some ... guidelines if you will.
It will not be your legalese dictionary, though Freedman does a wonderful job of explaining and clearing up a lot of terms, phrases, and laws, that you probably have heard a lot about, or will (such as a will for instance) This book will only explain why it is the way it is, what changes are coming, and few great cases along the way. (oh and also that legally, there is no law stating it has to be written like that, but there is a law that you're ignorance of the law is not an excuse)
Also, if you consider yourself knowledgeable already about the law or may even be a law student, some of the phrases and such that he describes, may feel below you (you already knowing them) but don't let that make you not read it. It gives you a linguistic look at them as well, and questions what do they really mean? Something that prosecutors and defenders and judges seem to argue about quite regularly.. In short the law is all about semantics, and even grammar! Who knew.
Also, lighten up a little! Don't assume just because he makes a joke about how , say an Australian statute "defines 'citrus fruit' to include eggs." Don't assume he doesn't know why or doesn't understand these things. He's just relaxed enough to realize it sounds funny. Also don't think that because he jokes about it, he always thinks the underling purpose is stupid. He expects he readers to keep up and I think it is easy to tell when he is joking. So maybe I under estimate the readers, by putting in this guideline, I know a lot of uptight crankies.
Also I would read it in sections. He does a wonderful job of separating chapters, and the sections within, and you might as well follow it. He's easy to read, and I like his amusing and intelligent voice throughout, it's just a lot to wrap your mind around sometimes. Besides you'll want to stop and think about what he is saying anyway.
Anyway, I enjoyed the book both as a persuasive essay for the Plain English argument (read the book) and an explanation to why legalese is the way it is.
Occasionally I feel he got a little hung up on the semantics and linguistics and forgets to explain some terms he may take for granted, or that sometimes he would entise my interest and then change the subject as it were, but this is a small complaint in an otherwise very interesting and informative book that taught me both valuable and "useless" information, like that "Buggery" is the legal term for anal sex in England.
Long story short: It's a reader!
This is not a dictionary or a decipher code that will magically make you understand that next contract you are signing, but it does make you understand legalese. That is, it allows you to understand why legalese is the way that it is. And knowing is half the battle!
The book was surprisingly (though had I given it more previous thought it would not have been so surprisingly) full of linguistic material. Afterall, having taken linguistics I know, legalese is a sub-language. (or whatever that the term for that is, I forget at the moment) And now I know why.
Basically when law began it was supposed to be so the average person could understand it. Then with boilerplate and all (read Chapter One and Two) legal documents ceased changing for fear of mucking up perfectly good laws, while the English language went on and changed as it will, and does constantly do. That of course is only the beginning. Then you get the people who feel that Latin makes the law sound better or is more precise. Which Freedman had me convinced, after only a few paragraphs, is flawed logic. Even if we lacked a word precise enough we could always make one up that was appropriate. Hell, I know plenty of authors and inventors that do it all the time.
I think though that I am getting off point here. This is simply a review of the book which I do recommend, with some ... guidelines if you will.
It will not be your legalese dictionary, though Freedman does a wonderful job of explaining and clearing up a lot of terms, phrases, and laws, that you probably have heard a lot about, or will (such as a will for instance) This book will only explain why it is the way it is, what changes are coming, and few great cases along the way. (oh and also that legally, there is no law stating it has to be written like that, but there is a law that you're ignorance of the law is not an excuse)
Also, if you consider yourself knowledgeable already about the law or may even be a law student, some of the phrases and such that he describes, may feel below you (you already knowing them) but don't let that make you not read it. It gives you a linguistic look at them as well, and questions what do they really mean? Something that prosecutors and defenders and judges seem to argue about quite regularly.. In short the law is all about semantics, and even grammar! Who knew.
Also, lighten up a little! Don't assume just because he makes a joke about how , say an Australian statute "defines 'citrus fruit' to include eggs." Don't assume he doesn't know why or doesn't understand these things. He's just relaxed enough to realize it sounds funny. Also don't think that because he jokes about it, he always thinks the underling purpose is stupid. He expects he readers to keep up and I think it is easy to tell when he is joking. So maybe I under estimate the readers, by putting in this guideline, I know a lot of uptight crankies.
Also I would read it in sections. He does a wonderful job of separating chapters, and the sections within, and you might as well follow it. He's easy to read, and I like his amusing and intelligent voice throughout, it's just a lot to wrap your mind around sometimes. Besides you'll want to stop and think about what he is saying anyway.
Anyway, I enjoyed the book both as a persuasive essay for the Plain English argument (read the book) and an explanation to why legalese is the way it is.
Occasionally I feel he got a little hung up on the semantics and linguistics and forgets to explain some terms he may take for granted, or that sometimes he would entise my interest and then change the subject as it were, but this is a small complaint in an otherwise very interesting and informative book that taught me both valuable and "useless" information, like that "Buggery" is the legal term for anal sex in England.
Long story short: It's a reader!
August 12, 2009
A much lighter "introduction" to the law than everything else I've been reading this summer in preparation for 1L. Behind the basic glossary and amusing anecdotes, however, is a fairly meaty issue: to what extent lawyers can conduct their business in plain English, and to what extent their failure to do so makes the justice system unnecessarily inaccessible to ordinary folk. One of the recommended books for my upcoming "legal writing and research" class is Wydick's "Plain English for Lawyers"-- a celebrated treatise amongst those who, like Freedman, advocate wholesale rejection of boilerplate and arcane legalese.
November 3, 2015
This is a funny library read. Definitely take it out from interlibrary loan and skim right through, enjoying page after page of funny anecdotes about trials decided by minor errors in wording, or strange old words seen in legal documents. However, it's extremely superficial and not really a book to own for insight about the legal profession or its language. The hefty volumes of Collected Papers on English Legal History 3 Volume Set are much more fascinating in that respect.
July 21, 2025
Will you like this book? Here’s an easy test: How many hours of your childhood were wasted trying to determine of what “won’t” is a contraction?
This is a collection of explorations of the history and use of common legal phrases, framed against the debate of “Plain English” v. “Traditional Usage” v. “OMG are you paid by the word?”
As someone who once threw a drink in the face of someone who used “should” where they CLEARLY meant “would,” I expected I would love this book. But, although there are a few highlights, it honestly never really grabbed me; it took me nearly a month to finish.
Note: 4 is generally my highest review; 5 is very rare and special. Bell Curves for Everyone!
This is a collection of explorations of the history and use of common legal phrases, framed against the debate of “Plain English” v. “Traditional Usage” v. “OMG are you paid by the word?”
As someone who once threw a drink in the face of someone who used “should” where they CLEARLY meant “would,” I expected I would love this book. But, although there are a few highlights, it honestly never really grabbed me; it took me nearly a month to finish.
Note: 4 is generally my highest review; 5 is very rare and special. Bell Curves for Everyone!
November 30, 2007
This is a great book to read if you want to understand legalese better. Or if you want to understand what your fiance means when he says "tort". Or to understand why he'll say one thing, and actually mean five things.
The book is funny.
My only complaint is that the book strongly advocates for "plain english" and derides using legal magical phrases. Clients and courts often want and require the convoluted ancient language of contracts and will reject plain english ones. Go figure.
The book is funny.
My only complaint is that the book strongly advocates for "plain english" and derides using legal magical phrases. Clients and courts often want and require the convoluted ancient language of contracts and will reject plain english ones. Go figure.
December 19, 2008
Being a lawyer, I thought that this might be interesting. Perhaps I have too much background but this book was not very good at all.
July 14, 2009
This was fun to read, and easy to pick up and put down after just a few paragraphs. I recommend for a waiting room, bathroom, or public transit book.
August 11, 2009
This little book discusses the origins of various familiar, and maybe not so familiar, legal terms, with charming wit. Who would have thought that a discussion of legalese could be so entertaining?
November 12, 2009
So you want to know why they hide the law behind legalese? Then this book is a must, side bonus: you'll laugh yourself silly!
April 6, 2012
Very amusing. Not as useful as I wanted it to be.
September 10, 2016
Don't read this if you're in law school.
Read
December 27, 2007It was fun for a dork like me!
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews