Clarity is an international association promoting plain legal language. It publishes the journal Clarity in May and November.

You can get PDFs of old issues on the website. I hope the latest May 2005 edition will be available online in November!

It isn’t written for translators. But it can be very useful in indicating the meanings of archaic legalese and indicating what is a term of art and what isn’t.

But the latest edition was really interesting for legal translators. Here’s the cover (click for an enlargement):

The best of all were the articles by William Robinson and Ian Frame, two translators (Robinson is no longer a translator, but in the Legal Revisers Group), on why the English of EU legislation is as it is. I’ll post a brief summary when I get round to it.

Some Germans, possibly in this case a typist, don’t understand English. One wonders how they manage to communicate with Deutsche Telekom.

Udo Vetter reports the following extract from a summons to a hearing in a criminal matter in Hamburg:

bq. Zu der Verhandlung werden geladen: als Zeugen:

bq. POK A.
POM D.
best regards, Ken K.

Now if anyone translated that into English, the translator would get the blame.

(Polizeioberkommissar, Polizeiobermeister)

Ernest Svenson, Ernie the Attorney, ist in New Orleans geblieben, wahrscheinlich ohne Möglichkeit zu posten. Am Sonntag schrieb er:

bq. So I tried to leave New Orleans today at 12:30 pm but after 4 hours of driving I had only made it 15 miles. I was alone and tired so I decided the safe play was to return. It’s kind of sad when the ‘safe play’ is to go back and wait to be pounded by the gnashing fury of a Category 5 hurricane.

Post aus Hannover
Gizmodo bekommt zwei Schreiben von einem deutschen Anwalt.

bq. Dr Schunke, no hard feelings, we know that lawyers love gadgets too and that Sony Ericsson knows how to build relationships with the online community.

Fuzzy Logic in Korea
David fragt sich, wie er seine Wäsche waschen soll.

Schlecht gekleidet in München / Badly dressed in Munich
Chris Bertram von Crooked Timber fand die Münchner schlecht gekleidet. Eine schwer nachzuvollziehende Auseinandersetzung in den Comments (auf Englisch).

bq. All of which brings me on to a less flattering observation on Germany and the Germans, namely, that the Germans may well be the worst dressed of the major industrial nations. Admittedly, the competition is stiff from us British and from the Americans, but I think the Germans may win on grounds of sheer uniformity.

(Via Eamonn Fitzgerald’s Rainy Day)

The Independent berichtete am 25. August:

bq. The sexual antics and misbehaviour of some of the City’s richest lawyers are uncovered in a novel that threatens to scandalise the legal profession.
Binge-drinking, bullying and licentious corporate bonding sessions are all explicitly recounted by the author, a 27-year-old solicitor who claims his book is based on events that took place at one of London’s biggest law firms.

Der Autor, Alex Gilmore (ein Pseudonym), arbeitete als Referendar in einer Londoner Großkanzlei und will andere warnen. Er sagte:

bq. “My book is typical of what goes on in many City law firms. Sex is used as a currency to advance careers and junior lawyers who don’t play ball find themselves out in the cold.”

Vor zwei Wochen war der Autor nicht bekannt:

bq. Senior partners in charge of the top London law firms will be hoping that the name of the firm remains secret. A partner at one of the main London law firms said: “If it turns out to be us then the proverbial excrement will truly hit the fan.”

Inzwischen hat die Daily Mail veröffentlicht, dass der Anwalt Paul Wragg und die Kanzlei Hammonds ist. Auch bei RollOnFriday, unter community – discussion – ein Forum für Leser.

Bei amazon.de bestellen:

Fish Sunday Thinking

(Via UK Criminal Justice Weblog)

At Language Log, Arnold Zwicky discusses the recent changes to instructions for California jurors. An article by David Kravets of 25 August goes into some detail. Peter Tiersma was involved – see his website for more materials on language and law.

bq. OLD: “A witness who is willfully false in one material aspect of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.”

bq. NEW: “If you decide that a witness deliberately lied about something important, you should consider not believing anything that witness says. Or, if you think the witness lied about some things, but told the truth about others, you may simply accept the part that you think is true and ignore the rest.”

Now I think they had picked that one up before the O.J.Simpson criminal trial