In the hallways of programming history, there was once a peculiar badge of honor: crafting the most convoluted and obscure code possible. This practice, known as “obfuscated code,” was particularly popular among C programmers who took pride in their ability to write code that was almost impossible to understand by others, challenging them to decipher its functionality. The International Obfuscated C Code Contest (IOCCC), which began in 1984, epitomizes this tradition—a celebration of the obscure and inscrutable.
I remember working for a large government agency where, whenever we needed to revise a piece of C code in our system, we had to locate the original developer who wrote it. The code was so intricately written that it was nearly impossible for any other C programmer to make modifications without risking significant issues. It became almost a running joke; whenever a revision was required, considerable efforts were made to track down this individual, and we would pay to bring them to our location to ensure the work was done correctly.
Fast forward to the legal profession, and we see a strikingly similar phenomenon. Many lawyers, like the C programmers of old, seem to take pride in drafting legal documents filled with dense, archaic language that can be nearly impenetrable to anyone without specialized training. This legalese serves as a modern-day code—one that only a select few can fully comprehend, and one that often requires another lawyer to decode.
The MIT study by Martínez, Mollica, and Gibson reveals that even lawyers find legalese to be cumbersome and challenging to understand. Their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), highlights that lawyers, much like laypeople, struggle to recall and comprehend legal content drafted in complex legalese compared to content written in a simplified register. This finding is telling—it suggests that the convoluted language so prevalent in legal documents may be more a product of tradition and convenience than necessity. The study further shows that lawyers rated simplified contracts as equally enforceable and preferable on several dimensions, including overall quality and the likelihood of being signed by clients(martínez-et-al-2023-eve…).
This mirrors the obfuscated code tradition in programming, where the challenge and prestige lay in creating something that others would find difficult to decipher. For the lawyers crafting legalese, the complexity may also serve as a means of signaling expertise, much like a programmer’s obscure code demonstrated their deep understanding of the C language. However, this complexity often results in increased costs for clients, as they must pay for additional legal services just to interpret their own agreements.
Moreover, this tendency towards complexity is not without its critics. In a time where transparency and accessibility are increasingly valued, the call for plain language in legal documents grows louder. My own article, “The State of Law,” underscores this need for clarity, emphasizing that overly complex legal language often leads to misinterpretation, inefficiencies, and ultimately, injustice. Just as the best code is now considered to be clear, maintainable, and understandable, so too should legal documents strive to be accessible to those who need to use them.
The parallel between these two worlds—law and programming—underscores a crucial point: complexity for complexity’s sake is rarely beneficial to the end-user. Whether it’s a piece of C code or a legal contract, the goal should always be clarity and functionality. As the research suggests, lawyers, much like programmers, might do well to embrace simplicity over tradition, ensuring that their work serves its intended purpose without unnecessary obfuscation.
While the creation of complex, challenging content might be intellectually stimulating and demonstrate a high level of skill, the broader aim should be to ensure that the content—whether legal or technical—serves its purpose effectively. It’s time for lawyers to take a page from the programmers’ book and strive to make their work more understandable, more accessible, and ultimately more useful to those who depend on it. After all, the best contracts—like the best code—are those that anyone can understand.
marksdeepthoughts.ca 
Leave a comment