Legal writing often sounds harder than it is. Sometimes that is because the issue is genuinely complex. A lot of the time, though, it is just ordinary ideas wrapped in old wording, status language, and phrases nobody has bothered to translate properly.
This guide breaks common legal and pseudo-legal terms into plain English, with context, so you can see what is actually being said, what the phrase does, and what it definitely does not do.
If you deal with employers, councils, the NHS, regulators, housing providers, or courts, this is the difference between reading a letter and actually understanding it.
Why legal language sounds harder than it is
A lot of legal writing is not complicated because the idea is complicated. It is complicated because the wording is old, formal, and often written for other lawyers, not for the person affected by it.
Sometimes that wording is necessary. A specific phrase can carry a specific legal meaning, and changing it can change the outcome.
But a lot of the time, it is just status vocabulary. The same basic point gets dressed up to sound official, then repeated so often people stop questioning it.
That is how you end up with simple ideas hidden behind phrases that sound like they were drafted by a Victorian ghost.
This guide is not about mocking legal concepts. It is about stripping the language back to what is actually being said, what matters, and what is just performance.
How to read legalese properly
When you see a legal term, ignore the tone and translate the mechanics.
- Who is acting?
- What are they saying happened?
- What rule are they relying on?
- What do they want to happen next?
If you cannot answer those four questions, the writing is unclear. That does not mean you are stupid. It usually means the writing is doing a poor job.
This matters even more in rights disputes. If the wording is vague, people often assume the other side must be correct because they sound official. That’s exactly the trap.
Latin legal terms, translated into normal English
Latin is not magical. It’s just old. Some Latin terms are still useful because courts and lawyers use them in a specific way. The problem starts when people use them like prestige confetti instead of just explaining the point.
Prima facie
What it means: On first look, there is enough here to proceed.
Plain English: Based on what we can see so far, there is a case worth taking seriously.
Example: “There is a prima facie case of discrimination” usually means “there’s enough evidence at this stage for this to be investigated or heard.”
De minimis
What it means: Too minor to matter legally.
Plain English: It’s trivial, so the law is not going to treat it as a serious issue.
Example: A tiny technical error with no real impact might be argued to be de minimis.
Inter alia
What it means: Among other things.
Plain English: Among other things.
Comment: English already had this phrase. We just decided to cosplay Rome for no practical reason.
Ultra vires
What it means: Beyond legal powers.
Plain English: They did something they were not legally allowed to do.
Example: If a public body makes a decision outside the powers given to it by law, that decision may be ultra vires.
Bona fide
What it means: In good faith.
Plain English: Genuine, honest, not a sham.
Mens rea
What it means: The mental element of a crime.
Plain English: What the person intended, knew, or was reckless about.
Comment: Criminal law often cares about what someone did and what was going on in their head when they did it.
Actus reus
What it means: The physical element of a crime.
Plain English: The act itself.
Comment: In basic terms, actus reus is the act, and mens rea is the mental state.
English legal words that still obscure meaning
These are not Latin. They’re just padded, overused, or left unexplained. This is where a lot of avoidable confusion comes from.
Without prejudice
What people think it means: “I can say anything now and it doesn’t count.”
What it actually means: This is a genuine attempt to settle a dispute, and the court should not use this communication as evidence that someone admitted liability if the case continues.
Why it exists: The law wants people to be able to negotiate. If every apology or settlement offer could be used against them later, nobody would settle anything.
Plain English: “We’re trying to resolve this. Don’t use this offer later as proof we admitted fault.”
What it does not mean:
- It is not a magic shield
- It does not make threats or abuse acceptable
- It does not apply just because someone typed the words at the top of an email
- It usually requires a real dispute and a real attempt to settle it
Related phrase, without prejudice save as to costs: The court usually does not see it when deciding who wins, but it can look at it later when deciding who pays legal costs.
Hereinafter
What it means: From this point onward in the document.
Plain English: “From now on, I’ll call this X.”
Comment: This is usually just document theatre. Defined terms can be introduced in normal English.
Notwithstanding
What it means: Despite.
Plain English: Despite.
Comment: It often looks more serious than it is. In many cases it is just “despite” in a tie and/or blazer (looking at you Simon Jordan).
Pursuant to
What it means: In accordance with, or under.
Plain English: Under.
Example: “Pursuant to section 15” usually means “under section 15.”
In the event that
What it means: If.
Plain English: If.
Comment: A one-word idea turned into a ceremonial procession.
Prior to
What it means: Before.
Plain English: Before.
Aforesaid
What it means: The thing mentioned earlier.
Plain English: The thing mentioned earlier, or just name it again.
Comment: “Aforesaid” is what happens when a simple sentence gets trapped in a haunted filing cabinet.
Therein, thereto, thereof
What they mean: In it, to it, of it.
Plain English: In it, to it, of it.
Comment: These survive mostly because old drafting habits are hard to kill.
Common legal concepts people hear but rarely get explained properly
Burden of proof
What it means: Who has to prove something.
Plain English: Who has to bring evidence and convince the court or tribunal.
Standard of proof
What it means: How strong the proof needs to be.
Plain English: How sure the court has to be before it accepts a claim.
Balance of probabilities
What it means: More likely than not.
Plain English: If something is 51 percent likely, that is usually enough in civil cases.
Comment: This is the usual standard in civil claims, tribunals, and many discrimination cases.
Beyond reasonable doubt
What it means: A much higher standard used in criminal cases.
Plain English: The court must be sure, not just “probably.”
Liability
What it means: Legal responsibility.
Plain English: Who is legally responsible for what happened.
Remedy
What it means: The legal fix.
Plain English: What the court or tribunal can order, such as compensation, reinstatement, or a declaration.
Why this matters in real life
If legal language is unclear, people usually make one of two mistakes:
- They assume the phrase is stronger than it is
- They assume they are too stupid to challenge it
Both outcomes favour whoever is using the jargon.
That is why plain English is not “dumbing down.” It is quality control. It separates the actual legal point from the costume.
If a phrase affects your rights, your job, your housing, your healthcare, or your case, you are entitled to ask what it means in normal English.
When legal wording is genuinely important
Not all legal phrasing is pointless. Some wording exists because courts have already interpreted it, and changing the wording can change the meaning.
Be careful with formal wording in:
- Contracts
- Tribunal pleadings
- Court applications
- Pre-action correspondence
- Formal complaints where legal rights are being asserted
The smart move is not to strip legal language out blindly. It is to use the term where it matters, then explain it clearly.
How to write legal points clearly without sounding like a committee from 1847
If you are writing to an employer, NHS body, council, charity, landlord, or regulator, clarity beats theatre every time.
Use this structure:
- State the rule
- State the facts
- State the breach
- State what you want done
- State your deadline
Example:
Instead of “Pursuant to your aforesaid correspondence, and notwithstanding prior communications, there appears to be a prima facie failure…”
Write: “Your reply on 14 January did not address the issue I raised. On the information available, there is enough evidence to show a likely failure to make reasonable adjustments. I want a written response to points 1 to 4 by 21 January.”
Same point, less theatre, more pressure.
Quick legalese to plain English glossary
- Prima facie, enough evidence at first glance
- De minimis, too trivial to matter legally
- Inter alia, among other things
- Ultra vires, beyond legal powers
- Bona fide, genuine, in good faith
- Mens rea, the mental element of a crime
- Actus reus, the physical act
- Without prejudice, settlement discussion, not evidence of liability
- Pursuant to, under
- Notwithstanding, despite
- Prior to, before
- In the event that, if
- Aforesaid, mentioned earlier
- Thereof, of it
- Burden of proof, who must prove it
- Standard of proof, how strong the proof must be
- Balance of probabilities, more likely than not
- Remedy, the legal fix
Useful sources if you want the official version
If you want to cross-check legal wording against official sources, these are worth bookmarking:
- legislation.gov.uk for UK Acts and regulations
- GOV.UK courts and tribunals guidance for procedure information
- Judiciary UK for judgments and judicial material
- Citizens Advice for plain-English legal and rights guidance
Those sources will not always be fun to read, but they are better than learning legal terms from random social media posts and someone’s cousin who “knows the law.”
FAQ, plain answers to common questions
Is legalese always bad?
No. Some legal terms exist for precision. The problem is when people use them to pad simple points, avoid clarity, or sound more authoritative than the argument really is.
Does “without prejudice” mean someone can say anything without consequences?
No. It usually protects genuine settlement discussions from being used as evidence of liability. It does not excuse threats, abuse, or unrelated nonsense.
Should I avoid legal terms completely?
No. Use them when they add precision. Just explain them if the reader is not a lawyer.
What is the easiest way to decode legal writing?
Find the actor, action, rule, and consequence. Once you do that, most legal writing stops sounding mystical and starts sounding like what it is, a claim somebody wants accepted.
Legal language should help people understand rights and obligations. It should not turn basic points into a vocabulary test. If someone can explain their point clearly, they usually understand it. If they cannot, there is a decent chance the language is doing more work than the argument.
Be First to Comment