Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
Something I think would be helpful would be to replace a "definitions" section with a "terms" section, with three subsections:<p><i>General Terms of Art</i> provide a vernacular English explanation for widely-used legal terms within the section. Example: "Joint tenants. A legal term meaning that the tenants not only hold a single undivided parcel together, but that ownership of the property passes to the other tenants if one tenant dies. If a tenant sells their interest, and the remaining tenants entered into a joint tenancy at the same time and on the same deed, the remaining tenants remain as joint tenants."<p><i>Specific Terms of Art</i> describe terms of art used in the particular contract or act. An example would be "protected health information" or "covered entity" in the context of HIPAA.<p><i>Terms of Clarification</i> are standard vernacular English terms that, for the sake of reducing frivolous navel-gazing, are defined precisely. An example would be "uniformed services" within Title 10, or "machine gun" in the Gun Control Act.<p>A layman could read the two terms of art sections and should be able to understand most statutes or contracts.<p>A lawyer familiar with the general terms of art could read the specific terms of art and understand most statutes or contracts.<p>Terms of clarification could be consulted only if the precise scope of a term becomes an issue.