I have indeed asked myself this question frequently. I am not a great fan of legal contract language, which I often find quite cumbersome and difficult to understand (not only for legal laypeople). With many stilted formulations and legal phrases, a standard employment contract can quickly end up being 15 or more pages long.
I can understand when many employees feel overwhelmed signing such an employment contract without legal assistance. In hindsight, unclear formulations in employment contracts often lead to disputes because no one understands what was originally meant. I find this quite unfortunate and also unnecessary.
💡 I wonder whether the art should not rather consist in expressing what is legally essential in easily understandable words?
Why are such 15-page employment contract monsters still used in practice? Is it due to the lack of understanding by many lawyers for the needs of their legally uninformed counterparts, or due to the lack of ability to express themselves simply and clearly? Or do many lawyers (myself included) often resort to standard employment contract templates out of convenience or due to time and/or cost pressure?
💡 That it can be done differently has been impressively demonstrated by Tony’s Chocolonely, for example. The company has managed to draft an employment contract in simple language on just a single page. The one-pager is reduced to the absolute essentials, and the content is underscored by visual elements. This innovative form of employment contract has obviously paid off for Tony’s Chocolonely, as the one-pager was extremely well received in recruiting.
What do you think—should lawyers make more effort to speak the language of their clients, or do you prefer employment contracts in classic legal jargon?