Six plain language myths in financial and legal writing

Many financial and legal teams want to make their documents clearer, yet worry about what they might lose in the process. A simpler explanation might seem less precise, less professional or unable to cover all the necessary detail. These concerns can stop a useful review before it begins. They also tend to rest on assumptions about plain language that deserve a closer look.

Plain language work involves understanding the subject well enough to explain it accurately to the intended reader. Sometimes that means replacing a formal expression with a familiar one. Often it means reorganising the explanation or adding information that an expert has taken for granted. The six myths below show why reducing the work to simpler words can be misleading.

Myth 1: complex subjects cannot be explained in plain language

Many people believe that a complex subject cannot be explained simply. A pension clause, for example, may seem too complicated to express in plain language because several conditions apply. However, this is a myth. It may take more words and a careful review of the structure, but the explanation can still be clear.

The writer needs to work out what the reader must understand first, then build the explanation from there. If the main rule has exceptions, those exceptions need to be explained in relation to the rule. A technical term may need a definition before the reader can follow the next point. This work preserves the subject’s complexity while making it possible for someone unfamiliar with it to understand the explanation.

Myth 2: plain language just means short sentences

There is a strong myth that short sentences are clear and long sentences are difficult. Sentence length matters, but it does not tell us how much work the structure asks of the reader. A longer sentence can be simple when its ideas follow a straightforward order. A shorter sentence can be complex when several clauses are nested inside it.

Consider this description of a payment review. It contains information about a payment, an account and a previous company review, compressed into one sentence:

I reviewed the payment made into the account activated in the last review made for the company.

The reader has to untangle which information belongs to the payment and which belongs to the account. The details about the previous review make that harder. Once the writer has confirmed the intended meaning, those details can be explained separately:

I reviewed the payment made into the account. The account was activated during the last review carried out for the company.

This version gives the information about the account its own sentence, so the reader can follow the payment review first. The overall explanation is longer, but the relationships are easier to see. That is why a sentence review needs to consider structure as well as length.

A shorter sentence can also hide a straightforward instruction behind abstract wording. For a notice about cancelling an insurance policy, compare this example from our financial writing work:

Before
Failure to comply with information provision may result in cancellation.

After
We may cancel your policy if you do not send us the information we ask for.

The revised sentence has more words, yet it explains who may cancel the policy and what could lead to cancellation. Its subject and action are clear, and the condition follows in a familiar order. The original makes the reader interpret abstract expressions before they can work out the practical meaning.

Myth 3: plain language looks unprofessional

Formal expressions can become so familiar within an organisation that an everyday alternative seems inappropriate. “Before commencing work” may sound more professional to a writer than “before starting work”, even when both convey the same meaning. Yet the reader still needs to understand the instruction. Familiar wording can make that instruction clearer without changing what it requires.

This does not mean replacing every specialist term with an approximate everyday word. Some terms have a precise meaning that the document must preserve. The useful distinction is between necessary terminology and avoidable formality. Working through that distinction with the relevant experts gives the team a reason for each choice, beyond personal preference.

Myth 4: experts do not need plain language

Expertise does not remove the effort involved in reading a poorly structured explanation. In a 2023 study of legal language, lawyers understood simplified contract extracts more easily and rated plain English contracts more favourably. They also rated the versions as equally enforceable. These were participants’ assessments in a study, rather than court decisions about particular contracts.

Expertise also depends on the subject. A reader may understand investment products well while knowing very little about a particular insurance condition. If we assume that a professional title tells us everything about someone’s knowledge, we risk leaving out explanations they need. Plain language starts with the intended readers and the information they need in this situation.

Myth 5: plain language removes nuance

Financial and legal information often needs qualifications because the same rule does not apply in every circumstance. Plain language work needs to make those qualifications clear and preserve their effect. Replacing “may” with “will” can turn a possibility into a promise. Removing “working” from “five working days” can change the period being described. These are changes to meaning, even though they make the wording shorter.

A careful review therefore compares the revised explanation with its source, including conditions, exceptions and obligations. Where a qualification is difficult to follow, the task is to explain its effect more clearly. Sometimes that review reveals an unresolved question about the product or policy itself. The responsible team needs to answer that question before a writer can produce an accurate explanation.

Myth 6: writing in plain language is easy

Clear writing can look straightforward once the work is finished. That can hide the decisions needed to produce it, especially when the subject is unfamiliar to the reader. The writer must understand the material, decide what needs explaining and organise the information into a coherent account. They then need to check that the revised version remains accurate and works for the people who will use it.

Training helps teams develop these skills and a shared basis for reviewing each other’s work. Testing with intended readers adds evidence about difficulties that a writer or subject expert may overlook. Our article on testing financial documents with customers explains how to assess actual understanding. For a short drafting example, see our insurance payment wording before and after.

How Narratology can help

We help financial and legal teams explain complex information while preserving its meaning. Our plain language training follows the ISO principles and uses participants’ own material. We also review existing communications to identify where readers may struggle and what needs to change. Contact Narratology to discuss the documents your team is working on.

Sources and further reading

Anne Trafton, MIT News, 29 May 2023: Even lawyers do not like legalese. The report links to the study by Eric Martínez, Frank Mollica and Edward Gibson.

ISO 24495-1:2023, Plain language: governing principles and guidelines.