Law360 Canada (December 4, 2025, 9:16 AM EST) --

Norm Bowley

Let’s call a spade a manually actuated excavation device. Why? Well, I can think of at least four reasons.

First, “spade” sounds like “spayed,” which is what we say of a lady dog who has lost her bits. Indirectly, it’s a sex word, and we never actually say sex words, we always use euphemisms. But more importantly, calling a spade a manually actuated excavation device just makes us sound so much smarter, so much more professional, so much cooler. And then, of course, one can sell a manually actuated excavation device for three or four times what you can get for a mere spade. Finally, euphemistic or tortured language can provide the thickets in which you can hide all manner of ugly things and not have to give the buyer his money back if the dang thing breaks on the first use.

Our language is cluttered with euphemisms, indirect and deflective ways of otherwise stating the obvious in simple Anglo-Saxon. When one utters one of those centuries-old words referring to bodily functions or sex bits, everyone knows exactly what they mean, but you can’t put them in print or say them on the radio. At least not in English; French Canadians are much more frank in this regard (except for church words).

Bureaucrats are not above speaking euphemistically or circuitously if doing so makes them seem more clever or important. Lawyers are occasionally guilty of this, although to be fair there are occasions when a great flurry of words is actually necessary.

Patent drafters, for instance, must leave nothing to the imagination or allow any ambiguity in their description of the item or process for which they’re asking a government monopoly. You can be sure that the “other guy’s” patent lawyers are looking for chinks in the armour, some slight gap or imprecision allowing them to create a widget that really looks and behaves like your widget, but “curves outwardly upwardly” ever so slightly differently. Those who draft legislation likewise are obsessive and finicky about “just right” words and expressions.

“Bafflegab” and “legalese” are actually not the native or preferred languages of lawyers, although most lawyers are fluent. Pharmaceutical, software, mortgage and insurance companies are especially fond of it. This language is just the opposite of the complex precision of patents or legislation, in which the object is to avoid ambiguity or obscurity. In the case of bafflegab, conversely, the exact object is to obfuscate and set up the reader for “gotchas” on critical points. Most “fine print” falls into this category.

When discussing the 12 pages of fine print in mortgage documents, most clients simply accepted my explanation “This stuff is entirely for the bank’s benefit, and none of it is for yours. Just keep your head down, make your payments, and make this go away as soon as you can. The bank’s lawyers wrote all this stuff thinking of how to make sure that no matter what happened, the bank would come out just fine.”

So there you have it. A temporally and spatially limited exposition, discussion and explanation of the role of euphemistic, oblique and obfuscatory linguistic mechanisms, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, and whether expressed orally or in writing, or electronically, or in some or all of these, for the benefit of the reader, the listener or the observer, as the case may be (herein referred to as “the reader”). Hope you enjoyed it.

Norm Bowley practised law in Ottawa for 37 years. Before retiring, his practice focused on high-net-worth individuals and families, particularly entrepreneurs and professionals. In “retirement,” Norm writes extensively, speaks, coaches and consults, and if there’s any spare time, maintains a bit of acreage on the Tay River. His upcoming book, The Lawyer and the Dropouts: Stunning insights about professional success and happiness, is expected later in 2025.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.