As Richard Wydick, the author of the book Plain English for Lawyers, notes, lawyers “use eight words to say what could be said in two. We use arcane phrases to express commonplace ideas. Seeking to be precise, we become redundant. Seeking to be cautious, we become verbose.” I think he’s right, and there’s one word above all that I regard as a bellwether for these trends. That word, guaranteed to send me into paroxysms of unrestrained fury every time I see it, is “hereinafter”.
Of course, legal language requires clarity and certainty that isn’t always demanded of writing in other contexts. Nonetheless, this shouldn’t be an excuse for lawyers to use archaic and redundant vocabulary, paying little or no heed to the usefulness of the words in question or to the sensibilities of the reader.
There are lots of words that fall within this category and are regularly seen in legal documents, but “hereinafter” has a particular tendency to barge its way in at the start of contracts, setting the tone. As soon as the parties are named, there it is: “ABC Limited, hereinafter referred to as the Seller”.
What “hereinafter” means in this context is “subsequently in this document”. But as legal training professional Martha Faulk comments, it sounds “silly, overstuffed … archaic and repetitious” (see her essay here: http://info.legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/pdf/perspec/2001-fall/fall-2001-1.pdf ). It’s exactly the kind of legal vocabulary that, depending on the context, makes non-lawyers tear their hair out or mock the legal profession for its pomposity and love of the outdated.
Worse still, it’s completely redundant. I have a range of precedents on my hard drive and documents I’ve received from other lawyers in transactions I’ve worked on. Nothing in my possession that originated in a respected law firm or legal KM provider uses "hereinafter" to define parties (or anywhere else). “ABC Limited (the ‘Seller’)” is perfectly acceptable.
After all, where else are you seeking to define the term except in the document at hand? No one is going to think you’re referring to the Complete Works of Shakespeare or are trying to impose usage on the English language as a whole.
Martha Faulk notes that “Sounding like a lawyer means using appropriate and precise language” and she’s spot on. In my opinion, if a lawyer needs to resort to an antediluvian drafting style in an attempt to come across as authoritative, they should find another job. If other professionals who produce legal texts, such as translators, use such words, they simply reveal that they have little appreciation of the needs of their clients.
My advice, therefore, is simple. Don’t use “hereinafter” at all. Ever. Not in this lifetime, not in the next one, and not even in the one after that.
