Common English Legal Idioms and Meanings
Idioms are a common part of the English language. They are sayings that have meanings that cannot necessarily be defined by their literal definitions. Idioms can be fun to use within conversation and can even help break the ice between people that you do not know very well. There are also a select few idioms that are more specifically used when discussing legal matters. Below are a few of the most commonly used legal idioms along with more information about how they are used.
To prove beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is no question that something is true.
Example #1: The defendant’s fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, so unless he can prove that he wasn’t the one who committed it, his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Example #2: The judge said that the only way the defendant could get out of this mess was if he could prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
The letter of the law means the literal interpretation or application of law. It is often thought of as conflicting with the spirit of the law.
Example #1: The defendant denied her relief for what she did because of the letter of the law; she argued that the law didn’t specify her actions as illegal.
Example #2: Obviously, in this case, it would be absurd to apply the letter of the law , but the appellant argues that it is his constitutionally guaranteed right to interpret the law as he chooses.
Affidavit of support is a form that must be signed by an individual in order to act as a sponsor for an individual from another country so that they will be able to obtain a visa to enter the United States.
Example #1: The affidavit of support must be signed by someone who is willing to pledge financial support for the foreign national.
Example #2: Not even the best of friends would sign an affidavit of support if they couldn’t afford to keep the foreigner off the street for a few months while they look for a job.
The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant is guilty.
Example #1: In order for this deposition to go anywhere, the plaintiff is going to have to prove without a doubt that the defendant is at fault.
Example #2: He knows that the burden of proof will be on him once the case goes to court.
The state cannot release an accused on bail without a court hearing.
Example #1: We want our client to be released on bail ASAP, but we can’t get a hearing. We don’t know what’s causing the delay; all we know is that the state government isn’t explaining anything to us.
Example #2: My attorney says that the state’s refusal to provide a hearing violates my rights. I just want to get out on bail already.
Origin of Legal Idioms
The origins of many legal idioms can be traced back for centuries or even millennia. "Pillar of the community," "the devil’s advocate," and "rob Peter to pay Paul" can all be traced back to the 1500s in the case of the first and 400 AD in the case of the second, with the origin of the third lost to history. Idioms such as "affidavit," "bona fide," "caveat emptor," "ex post facto," "in absentia," "mala fides," and "habeas corpus" all arose from Latin or Greek. Some expressions, such as "innocent until proven guilty" were popularized by the Magna Carta, while others, such as "promissory estoppel" came later in the English common law system. Many legal terms derive from historical legal systems that have been left behind, such as those of Babylon and Egypt. Other expressions are derived from stereotypical legal situations, such as "legalese" to describe a type of jargon that lawyers often use with other lawyers but that ordinary people do not understand. While many legal idioms are amusing, others can be rather sinister or foreboding.
Courtroom Drama Idioms
The figurative meanings of the following idioms reflect the characterization of people engaged in litigation as dramatizing their conflicts with self-important displays of emotion in order to gain the sympathy of the audience.
Between a rock and a hard place means to be faced with a dilemma. A plaintiff who chooses to move forward with what is widely considered to be a meritless case must weigh the damage it risks causing himself in the event that the lawsuit fails against the damage it risks causing to the defendant if the lawsuit succeeds. If the defendant believes that the plaintiff’s cause of action has no chance of success, then it has a strong motive to force the plaintiff to dismiss the lawsuit, which can result in serious delays, increased costs and added stress to all involved. The plaintiff may attempt to avoid these problems by abandoning his cause of action, but then he loses the opportunity to prevail on the merits, even if the damages caused by the lawsuit are his only means of compensation.
Catch-22 refers to a dilemma that involves contradictory conditions. Without a prerequisite qualification, you can’t have the job; with the qualification, you can’t have the job. Catch-22 works particularly well to describe the predicament of plaintiffs who lack insurance to cover the damages they suffer. Suppose the plaintiff is a court employee injured at work while attempting to save a runaway bus from killing children. The plaintiff would be unable to sue the government for negligence, even though his injuries would not have occurred if the bus driver had not been negligent. Why not? Because, under the worker’s compensation system, worker’s compensation is a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy against the employer for on-the-job injuries. If the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the bus driver (who may also be insured), and if the plaintiff prevailed under a negligence theory, then the court would award plaintiff the costs of his damages incurred, but the defendant bus driver could file a claim against the plaintiff’s employer, obtaining either reimbursement of all costs of the award to the plaintiff or offsetting the costs of the award against the defendant’s costs of making the award. The end result is that the plaintiff recovers nothing, and the defendant incurs zero cost. The plaintiff’s negligence claim against the employer would be barred for the same reasons, and thus the plaintiff has nowhere to go. Thus, he is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t applies to the situation of a person who faces a dilemma regardless of the choice he makes. For example, a plaintiff who refuses to dismiss a meritless claim is damned, and if he dismisses the claim, then he is also damned.
Damned if I do, damned if I don’t refers to the predicament of taking an action that can lead to dire consequences either way. A plaintiff who refuses to dismiss a suit will be damned by the resulting delay, added costs and time restrictions placing pressure on all parties involved. If the plaintiff dismisses the suit, he will be damned by losing the opportunity to prevail on the merits.
Misuses and Misunderstandings of Legal Terms
Legal idioms, like those in any language, can be misunderstood or misused. One common example is "pro bono," which is full of misconceptions and is used incorrectly by even those who adopt "pro bono" work as part of their legal practice. The current expression, as with other "pros," refers to a public service, and in this case it means "for the public good." The lawyers’ use "pro bono publico" means "for the public good" directly and speaks to the expectation lawyers will do some work for free and often as part of their volunteer expectations. Yet the phrase is often misunderstood to mean free, to include any type of work (not just for the public good), and often extended to a lawyer’s private life—"I do my own pro bono work for church too."
Even well-educated lawyers can struggle with the Latin based legal idioms—weighing the use of "ante" and "post" (before and after) correctly can drive some lawyers to cold pizza for dinner. Another pet peeve at legal meetings is "referendum , " which lawyers like to think refers to legislation put to the people (like Proposition 114 in Colorado for instance). But hazard a panel on voter initiatives or recall elections and you will get "referendum" more often than not. Most of my colleagues from other states were shocked when Colorado’s petition system was explained to them at the Association of American Law Schools conference. Colorado’s ballot initiative process is notoriously difficult to explain and different from most other states and the title "referendum" is further complicated by a vote on an act of the legislature that is not a petition. Confusion is not unique to the lexicon of law—advocacy communications terms suffer the same tendency to misuse, particularly at this stage of the Internet.
Influence of Legal Idioms in Pop Culture
Legal Idioms have made their mark well beyond the courtroom and have left their traces on literature, film, and other mediums that make up popular culture. In literature, for instance, "to gavel" has been used in various novels to signify finality, including in the works of prominent authors such as James Patterson and Janet Evanovich. In the Patterson novel "The 5th Horseman," for example, we find the following: "She had finally gotten through to the chief of protocol. She gavelled back the call to Atlanta." The "gaveling back" of a call is, of course, taken directly from the legal parlance referring to the gaveling down of a judge’s hammer.
The use of law-related idioms can also be found in movies and television shows. Perhaps the best-known examples of movie quotes making it into popular culture are the iconic lines spoken by members of the jury in "A Few Good Men" ("You can’t handle the truth!") and by the angel Gabriel in "Dogma" ("…and we can’t act until you do").
Legal idioms are also often used in both dramas and comedies. A few notable examples are the following: In addition to the above examples, there are many more legal idioms that have made it into the fabric of popular culture.
Effective Use of Legal Idioms
Effective Use of Legal Idioms
As with all idiomatic language there are times and places that are more suitable than others for their use. The best advice is to be judicious and sensible when employing legal idioms. In general terms one must know the audience and know the purpose of the communication.
Simply stated – Know Your Audience.
If the audience is comprised of laymen, e.g., jurors or potential clients, then simple terms and an honest effort to explain complex legal terms is a clear minimum. Be careful not to use legal idioms as a substitute to actually explaining the legal concepts and the application of the law to your case. In other words do not try and use idioms to impress. During discovery depositions, or at trial, strive to put the legal concept into your language so that you can see whether the witness understands the concept. You will quickly figure out what is and what is not understood.
If the audience is comprised of other lawyers – either co-counsel , opposing counsel or a judge – then again I suggest being judicious with the use of legal idioms. In this respect nothing is more annoying than being lectured on the correct meaning of a commonly understood legal concept – especially if the person doing the lecturing does not understand the concept him or her self. It is a perfect opportunity to throw back some of your favorite legal idioms.
And finally, if the audience is composed of either law students or law professors it really depends upon the professor or the law students. Many law students – even the proficient ones – still have tremendous difficulty with idiomatic language. The best advice here is to judge the group and gauge them accordingly. If you get a great reaction and they seem to enjoy the idiom then press on. If you do not get a good reaction then perhaps you might try translating the legal idiom into your own language. A quick survey of your audience will generally determine whether the idiom worked or not.
In short, while the appropriate use of idiomatic language is a valuable teaching tool I have learned to use it cautiously, even sparingly, for laymen or lawyers. However, to my teachers and professors I say use, that is the best way to explain how to understand the proper role of idioms in legal language.
