David Starkoff writes:

What I�m getting at is that the primary audience of judgments is not the general public. The general public couldn�t care less. Further, I wonder whether the primary audience�at least at the appellate levels�should be the general public. I think for the most part, they are decisions argued by lawyers intended for lawyers. There is no doubt that the law is becoming more accessible to the general public. The Internet has seen to that, and the Australian judiciaries have embraced it. AustLII is a great resource and media-neutral citations are fantastic. But does it mean that judges should tailor their writing to the general public? I�m less than convinced. I have to wonder, how do you expect people to take an interest in law if all the documents and all the judgements are written in legalese that only lawyers can underst’don’t expect non-computer types to take an interest in the highly technical documents I write, but I might expect them to take the time to read a carefully written, simple to understand manual or overview of the technical information. In other word’can’t expect people outside of your target audience to read and understand your work. If you want the general public to pay attention to legal issues, you need to make them accessible to the general public and that largely involves lawyers learning how to use the English language in more useful ways – ie: in a way in which they can be clearly and easily understood. That is after all, what language is all about.