Lawyers have long been the bad guys in the eyes of Plain English Campaign.

For years they have held possessively on to words and phrases most people do not understand, let alone use themselves.

Do we really expect the person in the street to understand a work contract which states: 'Anything contained herein prior to the date hereof to the contrary notwithstanding'?The answer has to be no, in which case the next question is: why do lawyers write in such a way? Some would argue that such language is essential - it identifies the legal expert.

And, as in all professions with their own language, legalese helps lawyers to feel they 'belong'.But what does it do for everyone else? How many lawyers have thought long and hard about the people who are going to read their skilfully crafted contracts, letters and documents? I would guess the answer to be not many.

Faced with the choice between doing things the way they have always been done and taking risks in order to change the habit of many generations, most of us would rather stick to the long established order.In law this is even more apparent.

Here, it is not simply a case of upholding the status quo, there is even more at stake.

Perhaps the biggest battle the plain English campaigners have with lawyers is in the context of 'precedent'.

Most lawyers would be reluctant to wander too far from wording which has set a precedent.And when legal writing takes its wording from past documents, the result is writing littered with outdated words which nobody today would use in conversation, as in this extract from a rent agreement: 'If the rent hereby reserved or any part thereof shall be unpaid...or if any covenant...on the tenant's part herein contained shall not be performed...then in any of the said cases it shall be lawful for the landlord at any time thereafter to re-enter upon the premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon the tenancy shall be absolutely determined.'Language is a living, breathing thing; it changes and develops all the time, although some are happier than others to move with the times.

Lawyers are clearly lagging behind the rest of the field.

Some lawyers have, however, taken up the message of Plain English Campaign and have made good progress in recent years.Hundreds of people every day are left feeling angry or humiliated when faced with contracts, hire agreements and countless other documents they cannot understand.

In this situation many do not ask for help, out of fear they will look stupid.Plain English Campaign argues that it is the responsibility of the writer, not the reader, to ensure his or her writing can b e understood.

This means instead of writing in the manner they and their profession have used for generations, lawyers should stop and think about their audience.

They should ask themselves: who am I writing for; are they likely to understand what I have written; and can I make it clearer? Of course it is not as simple as that, but once you have grasped the techniques of plain English, and have the commitment to put it into practice, you will be more than half way there.Plain English is about thinking about your audience; using familiar rather than out-dated or complex words; keeping an average sentence length of 15 to 20 words; cutting out jargon and legalese; using personal pronouns like 'I' and 'you', rather than 'the company' and 'the employee'; and where possible using active rather than passive verbs.Some may be asking: 'Why should I bother?' One reason is that nowadays the customer has more choice, and with it more power.

More and more organisations are focusing on customer care and recognise that clients can choose to go elsewhere if they do not like - or understand - what one company is saying.

In this context, plain English is a major concern.Another argument for plain English is that it can save money.

Research shows that £6 billion a year is lost to business through mistakes and inefficiency caused by sloppy writing.But, for some, the most compelling argument for plain English is a new regulation which comes into force in July.

Following an EU Directive, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations state: 'A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language, and if there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.'This leaves very few hiding places for the dinosaurs of outdated legalese.

And if the moves towards plain English continue at this pace, perhaps, one day, the European Union would not get away with this as a description of pyjamas: 'Pyjamas for women and girls, in position 6108 of the combined nomenclature concerning the common customs tariff, in the versions figuring in annexe 1 of regulation (EEC) no 2658/88 of the Commission, should be interpreted in the sense that it covers clothes which by reason of their general appearance and the nature of their material, give the impression that they are designed to be worn exclusively or essentially in bed.'Like it or not, plain English is here to stay.

Someone had better tell the EU.