每一个国家的法律语言通常都是这个国家的最正式、最规范的语言。从原则上讲，用精确的词语表达明晰的法律概念，是法律语言最重要的特点和最基本的要求，因为法律写作的目的是“传意”（communicate)，因为…people have the right to be informed in language which they can understand, of benefits to which they are entitled, and obligations which are imposed on them. This is only fair. It is part of the rule of law ... 要把立法人或统治者的意志准确无误地传达给人民，从而使人民知法守法，必须要有可靠的传播媒介;而这个传播媒介必须能够精确地、有效地表达统治者的意志。英语和其他语种的法律语言都是这样一种媒介。所以，对法律语言的要求不但要精确，而且要清晰(Clear/Clarity)。

“法律如果写得不清楚，就会变成陷阱。”同样，如果法律条文翻译得不清晰，含糊其词，模棱两可，这种法律条文不但会无法执行，甚至也可能成为陷阱，即便原文不是陷阱，没有陷阱，译文也会使之成为陷阱，成为理解的陷阱。而要使法律文章写得清晰，译得清晰，未必就需要使用复杂的语法时态和句型结构;恰恰相反， “……最简单的英文是最佳的立法用语”。Alison Russell在论述法律英语时指出句子要简短。长词应避免。只要能将意思说明白，不用一个多余的词。”

以下的例子是一个上诉案中的一段申述。该法律文章的起草人试图说服上诉庭，使其相信地方法庭在法律释义方面犯有错误:

例1

The district court, on the other hand, erroneously addressed but one word of the Bankers Blanket Bond—the term “realized”—and then the district court misapplied it by erroneously considering whether (the appellee) “realized” a benefit and the Bank suffered a loss, which is not a question under the Bankers Blanket Bond; and once the district court found that the Bank suffered a loss it held the Insurer liable without considering the language of the Bankers Blanket Bond as relevant to the issue of whether that loss was covered under the Bankers Blanket Bond.