Changes for page Legal, medical and financial terms

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -2,31 +2,36 @@
2	2	The legal, medical and financial professions are known for using complex terminology. But it's not necessary and confuses people who use their services.
3	3
4	4
5		-Law
	5	+[[Law>>doc:||anchor="l"]]
6	6
7		-Medicine
	7	+[[Medicine>>doc:||anchor="m"]]
8	8
9		-Money
	9	+[[Money>>doc:||anchor="mo"]]
10	10
11	11
12		-== Law ==
	12	+== {{id name="l"/}}Law ==
13	13
14		-Over the years, judges have tried to decide what the legal writers intended their writing to mean. They evolved a set of tools to do this analysis: Statutory Interpretation.
	14	+Judges need to decide what legal writers intended their writing to mean. They have evolved a set of tools for this analysis: Statutory Interpretation.
15	15
16		-Writing in plain English can make meaning clear, so that judges don’t have to rely on these sometimes contradictory interpretations.
	16	+Writing in plain English can make meaning clear, so that judges don’t have to rely on sometimes contradictory interpretations.
17	17
	18	+If information on your website is unclear your organisation could be taken to court and lose, even if the content was approved by a legal department.
18	18
19		-=== 1. Explain the law in context. ===
20	20
	21	+=== 1. Explain the law simply, in context. ===
	22	+
21	21	When you refer to a law, or part of it, explain what the law is about right there at the point of user need. Do not only refer to it in a reference section or appendix.
22	22
	25	+>Example:
	26	+> "We collect personal information on this form under section 26 the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, because it concerns our programs and activities (c), and it is necessary for planning and evaluating our programs and activities(e)."
	27	+> This content is positioned at the top of a form, not hidden away in references section.
23	23
24		-== 2. Give simple explanations for complex terms. ==
	29	+>Example:
	30	+>
	31	+>"Direct sales contract — exemptions from application of the Act" [Subheading]"
	32	+>
	33	+>5 (1) This section describes direct sellers that are, and circumstances in which direct sellers are, exempt from the application of sections 19 to 22 (required contents, direct sales contracts, direct sales contract — cancellation, credit agreement respecting direct sales contract) of the Act." [Body copy]
25	25
26		->Example:"We collect personal information on this form under section 26 the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, because it concerns our programs and activities (c), and it is necessary for planning and evaluating our programs and activities(e)."This content is positioned at the top of a form, not hidden away in references section.
27		-
28		->Example:"Direct sales contract — exemptions from application of the Act" [Subheading]"5 (1) This section describes direct sellers that are, and circumstances in which direct sellers are, exempt from the application of sections 19 to 22 (required contents, direct sales contracts, direct sales contract — cancellation, credit agreement respecting direct sales contract) of the Act." [Body copy]
29		-
30	30	== ==
31	31
32	32	== Usability evidence for plain English in law ==
...	...	@@ -37,13 +37,13 @@
37	37
38	38	[[The public speaks: an empirical study of legal communication>>url:http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=christopher_trudeau]], study by Christopher Trudeau (@proftrudeau on Twitter) containing case studies from solicitors about using legal language.
39	39
40		-[[Richmond vs HRA>>url:http://www.alltrials.net/news/judgment-in-richmond-v-hra-judicial-review/]] A pharmaceutical company called Richmond took the Health Regulatory Authority to court because the website was confusing. A high court judge deemed the site 'unlawful' and ruled against the government. The site was cleared through a legal department. This set a precedent in the UK. Just because all the legal language is there, doesn't mean you can't be sued.
	45	+[[Richmond vs HRA>>url:http://www.alltrials.net/news/judgment-in-richmond-v-hra-judicial-review/]] A pharmaceutical company called Richmond took the Health Regulatory Authority to court because the website was confusing. A high court judge deemed the site 'unlawful' and ruled against the government. The site was cleared through a legal department. This set a precedent in the UK. You could still be sued even with all the legal language is there, if the information is not clear.
41	41
42		-[[Plain English Campaign>>url:http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/legal/drafting-in-plain-english.html]] The Plain English Campaign argues that legalese is unnecessary and does not do what it was intended to. 'The argument that clarity should be sacrificed for a document to be comprehensive does not stand up.'
	47	+[[Plain English Campaign>>url:http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/past-campaigns/legal/drafting-in-plain-english.html]] believes legalese is unnecessary and does not do what it was intended to. "The argument that clarity should be sacrificed for a document to be comprehensive does not stand up."
43	43
44	44
45	45
46		-== Medicine ==
	51	+== {{id name="m"/}}Medicine ==
47	47
48	48	People need letters and reports about their health from doctors and consultants to be easy to understand. And they need online information to be comprehensible.
49	49
...	...	@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
65	65	[[Academy of Medical Royal Colleges – Guidance on writing letters to outpatients>>http://www.aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Please_write_to_me_Guidance_010918.pdf]]
66	66
67	67
68		-== Money ==
	73	+== {{id name="mo"/}}Money ==
69	69
70	70	Many people do not understand their finances and it causes them problems. Complex terminology describing concept-heavy arrangements about a non-tangible resource makes things difficult for everybody.
71	71