Thamara Belinatti and Heloisa Nogueira
In recent weeks, a real stir in the legal world has taken over the media and divided opinion. A judge broke new ground when issuing a court order, employing language that was anything but conventional for the legal field. Instead of traditional "legalese," she opted for a humorous approach, using meme references to explain the confusion that had arisen in the case records.
Naturally, the judge's decision sparked debate. On one hand, professional colleagues frowned upon the informality. On the other, there were proponents who seized the opportunity to reflect on language and accessibility within the law. Here at Nogueira Engel, we pondered the following question: Does "modernization" undermine the seriousness of the justice system, or does it—on the contrary—bring the people who matter closer to concepts that are sometimes lost in legalese?
In our view, the answer lies in greater clarity within legal language; let’s face it, no one writes petitions or judgments with the same flowery, convoluted tone that used to be the norm. In today’s world, where we are constantly bombarded with information, language needs to be clear and objective. The flourishes often found in legal filings can sometimes fail to serve their purpose, instead leaving those seeking justice feeling confused or alienated.
That said, we must acknowledge the fine line between making language accessible and clear and compromising the gravity that the justice system demands. Ultimately, we are dealing with decisions that affect lives. What one person interprets as "lighthearted" or "jocular," another might perceive as disrespectful.
Perhaps the judge went a bit too far. Perhaps the time isn't quite right for a shift so radical that memes replace words in court orders. Perhaps we could also reclaim the beauty of the Portuguese language, which offers many ways to express ideas in a manner understandable to everyone.
One thing is certain: language is constantly evolving. With the arrival of a new generation in the judiciary, the public prosecutor's office, and the legal profession, we are seeing significant changes in working relationships and communication formats.
It is worth noting that, ultimately, we work for and serve people, ensuring their rights and access to justice. The issue isn't simply about using memes versus maintaining traditional formality; it is about striking a balance between accessibility and seriousness.
The law needs to be understood by those who rely on it, without sacrificing the respect and responsibility that legal decisions demand. The evolution of legal language is inevitable, and resisting this change could further alienate people from the justice system. Perhaps it is not yet the time for court orders to become trends, but ignoring the need for clear, accessible communication is not the answer either. As with everything in law, the solution likely lies in the middle ground.
