The double and triple meanings of legal language account for many of the odd newspaper headlines that make the rounds on the Internet — "Man struck by lightning faces battery charge" for example. Or "Juvenile court to try shooting defendant." Now there's an idea.

In 2001, the Economist magazine reported on a "worrying gap" between the language of the public and that of the legal profession. That gap grows wider every day, as legal English staunchly resists the changes rippling through everyday English. On the bright side, this means that the law is less susceptible to silly fads - lawyers don't write things like "gr8 - cu l8r!" - but it also means that the law is less and less accessible to each new generation.

Legalese could even evolve into a foreign language in the not-too-distant future. Already, many linguists refer to the language of law as a "sublanguage," meaning that it's more than just a collection of jargon, but also has its own specialized rules of grammar and syntax. How many ordinary English speakers understand the common mortgage term that asks you to promise that you are "lawfully seised of the estate to be conveyed?" Or the promissory note that makes you waive your right to "interpose any counterclaim?" Sublanguage indeed.

The fact that legalese is drifting away from everyday language is especially sad since the story of legal English is, in many ways, the story of the English language itself.