Jargon, Argot and Technical Terms

It is sometimes said that the legal vocabulary is full of argot. Argot is generally used to communicate in secret among a small group; this does not properly typify legal language. Others claim that legal terminology is largely jargon. I use the term jargon to refer to language of a profession that is not sufficiently precise to qualify as a technical term (e.g., conclusory). Jargon can be useful in facilitating in-group communication, but should obviously be avoided in communicating with the public.

If the distinctive legal vocabulary actually enhances communication, it must be mainly through technical terms, or terms of art. It is sometimes claimed that legal language has few true terms of art. Any law dictionary reveals that there are large numbers of technical terms, however. Those who claim otherwise may have too strict a notion of the precision required for a technical term. As long as an expression has a relatively exact meaning, is used by a particular trade or profession, and promotes brevity of expression, it fulfills an important communicative function and can properly be called a technical term. Such terms are less exact in law than in the hard sciences because legal terms typically refer to concepts that change over time, or are slightly different in divergent jurisdictions. And they may be modified by judicial decisions. Contrary to expectations, judicial decisions, by following the intent of the drafter over the " plain meaning " of a word, often make the meaning of the word less precise. Courts and the legal profession could work together to make legal terminology much more exact, but it would come at the cost of negating the intentions of speakers who use a term in a different sense. Legal terminology will therefore never be as precise as the profession might hope.