In-House Counsel

No Legalese, Please

For my new-to-in-house crew: lose the legalese.

By  
on

While I sincerely doubt the efficacy of legalese in private practice, there is certainly a toleration. I distinctly remember how the first partner I ever worked for inserted “hereforeto” in red ink to my brief, and I had to Google what it meant. (And if I were being honest, I would still have to Google it today.)

There is no such tolerance for legalese in-house, at least in my experience, whether you’re the business (usually mostly comprised of nonlawyers) or in-house counsel receiving legal advice from outside counsel. While I have never actually asked anyone why legalese is so hated in-house, I have a couple of ideas.

First, in the business world, where time is precious and businesses have access to so much data and information, legalese is simply inefficient. The most basic reaction is “ain’t nobody got time for that.” If people have to look up defined terms or take the time to interpret and translate what you mean — that unnecessary complexity actually cuts against clear communication. In the world of “what’s the bottom line” and “in a nutshell,” there is little room for legal treatises and memoranda with historical legislative history and deep analysis of case law.

Rather, the preference is for executive summaries, PowerPoint slides with minimal text, and high-level bullet points. Any time you can present information in one page — presenting pros and cons “at-a-glance” is ideal; bonus points if it can be boiled down to a handful of talking points. This is especially true the higher up on the organizational hierarchy your business client is.

While in-house counsel are obviously lawyers and can understand legalese, we still prefer plain English. It’s such a time suck to have to read an in-depth legal memo, pull out the most important points, and translate the legalese into plain English in an acceptable format for business clients. As I noted in a previous blog on how to stand out as outside counsel, advising in Plain English will set you apart from other outside counsel.

Second, my guess for why legalese is so unwelcome in-house is that legalese can have the detrimental effect of making others feel inferior — or just as bad or worse — make others feel like you intentionally want them to feel inferior (or make yourself superior or sound smarter). Even if it doesn’t have that actual effect on everyone or anyone, it can still create an unnecessary barrier to building trust and rapport with clients and colleagues.

Finally, while this tip is less about legalese and more about style of giving advice, it’s definitely worth sharing. This may be subjective to the type of company, but in my experience, lawyers who “waffle” aren’t as respected, especially as in-house counsel. Yes, our clients want us to research and analyze the law to help provide pros and cons — but our real value to the business is our judgment and providing a legal recommendation. What is not helpful is to only provide pros and cons and analysis — and then stepping back and distancing yourself from a decision instead of being an advisor. It’s also important to consider practical implications and actual risks and possible mitigation of those risks instead of simply playing the role of issue-spotter and “bursting business bubbles.” Along the same line, avoid the other end of the spectrum, which is being seen as a pushover, without a substantive opinion. Both the language you use and the way you support clients as a legal advisor are important considerations when you’re in-house.

Sponsored

Meyling “Mey” Ly Ortiz is in-house at Toyota Motor North America. Her passions include mentoring, championing belonging, and a personal blog: TheMeybe.com. At home, you can find her doing her best to be a “fun” mom to a toddler and preschooler and chasing her best self on her Peloton. You can follow her on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meybe/). And you knew this was coming: her opinions are hers alone.

Sponsored

Topics

,