We Like Plain English
As I discussed in this article/post last month, as of Dec. 1, 2003, Federal Rule 23(c)(2) requires, for the first time, that class settlement notices “must concisely and clearly state in plain, easily understood language” certain information about the nature and terms of a class action and how it might affect potential class members’ rights.
Two Notices of Pendency of Class Action that we recently circulated to our clients illustrate the significant difference between a "Plain English" notice and an old-school notice written in traditional legalese. The first notice, available here, was circulated in In re: Providian Financial Corp. Securities Litigation. The second notice, available here, was circulated in In re: Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation. I don't think I need to identify which is which.
Even (or particularly??) after more than a decade of reading legal documents, I much prefer the new Plain English style, which allows the reader to quickly identify the important points, understand why he or she has received the document, and decide what, if anything, must be done.
| Permalink | Print Article | Back To Top |
Comments
Me, too! This is great news for the average consumer of legal services, and even for "old" lawyers like myself. The most consistent crusade in my professional life (besides protecting consumers in general) has been getting lawyers to use Plain English. Back in the late 1970s, when I started nagging about it at the FTC, I would have never guessed that class action settlements would be easy to read some day. I'm psyched. As soon as I get back from my short posting holiday at ethicalEsq, I shall link to this post.
Posted by: David Giacalone | April 22, 2004 7:13 PM
Aloha,
1978 - Hawaii amended the State Constitution to include that "all government writing" intended for the public should be clear. Art. XVI, §13
In a document written by the State Departmentof Commerce and Consumer affairs in a section that is supposed to provide for PUBLIC Access Producers' inclusion on the board of directors of the local PEG access center's BOD, the language they used to describe the qualifications uses the term "and" rather than "or" in the list of qualifications of a voter:
Final PEG Plan - January 2004
ISSUE #2: Governance - PEG Board Appointment Process
DCCA’s Governance Plan:
"Voters in these elections will be limited to:(1)anyone who is currently certified as a
producer at the PEG entity,(2)anyone who has submitted a tape for broadcast by the
PEG entity during the past 24 months,AND (3)anyone who has completed a certification
training program offered by the PEG entity."
see: http://hpam.hi.net/dcca/2004FinalPEGPlan/#DCCAgovernancePlan
When we asked the author if all these qualifications had to be met they said no. They say they are disjunctive. My understanding is that the term "or" is preferred if the author intended these qualifications to be disjunctive.
In my humble opinion the author's intent was to confuse. Any ideas what we could/should do to get them to change the language accordingly?
jg
digitaleye@hi.net
STATE CONSTITUTION
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
Art. XVI, §13
PLAIN LANGUAGE
Section 13. Insofar as practicable, all governmental writing meant for the PUBLIC, in whatever language, should be plainly worded, avoiding the use of technical terms. [Add Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]
Posted by: Jeff Garland | May 9, 2004 12:53 PM