Have you been struggling to learn legal English for years? Do instructors and courses fall short of your expectations? Did you fly halfway across the world for an LLM with the hope that your legal English would improve, only to find yourself disappointed?
You’re not alone. And you’re not the problem.
Here’s why the dominant approaches to teaching legal English fail—and what legal English education should look like instead.
In this post, we'll look at:
Continue reading to learn why the Practical Global Approach is a better method for legal English learning and download a free sample workbook created using this approach for a standard legal English class here at Klammer Academy.
I. The Well-Meaning but Clueless Approach
The Well-Meaning but Clueless Approach simplifies legal English to ordinary English used in a law-related setting. Learners are placed in real-world scenarios only tangentially related to the law and are expected to “just talk” in English. The hope is that this will help them to “come out of their shells” and get into the habit of speaking.
Learners receive no prior preparation for these real-world scenarios. So the Well-Meaning but Clueless approach fails in terms of:
❌ Legal Vocabulary and Concepts:
- Little or no introduction to key legal vocabulary.
- Lack of explanation of essential legal concepts relevant to the scenarios.
❌ Comparative Law Perspective:
- No prior discussion on how the scenarios will challenge their current understanding of the law.
- Absence of insights into how different legal systems might affect their interpretations.
❌ Contextual Expressions:
- Minimal or no practice with key contextual expressions that might be used in legal settings.
- No guidance on how to decode or effectively use these expressions in practice.
❌ General Guidance:
- Limited to occasional lists of basic English vocabulary for casual conversation.
- No structured approach to integrating legal English skills into practical scenarios.
The theory behind it is that, “What these students really struggle with is general oral communication.” While this may be true, it raises a question: Why market it as legal English training when you are teaching general English?
This situation also raises questions about the ethical considerations and appropriateness of the instruction provided.
👉 Unmet Expectations: When learners invest significant amounts in legal English programs and leave unprepared for law practice, they may feel shortchanged.
👉 Inadequate Pricing: If learners are still at a point where they need basic oral communication training, they should not be charged for legal English training.
You are not ready for legal English training if you are not yet an independent speaker of English. Using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), you should not pay for law-specific training unless you are at a B2 level or above. 🧠
Why? Because below that level, you are still learning to speak English—and any qualified English instructor can teach you that. You don’t need to invest in specialized legal English training if it is not providing relevant legal English instruction.
The Well-Meaning but Clueless Approach fails because it oversimplifies legal English, giving learners an inadequate understanding of it and leaving them to struggle with the complexities of real-world legal communication without proper guidance or resources. Essentially, it fails to provide the necessary tools for learners to succeed in the real world.
II. The Elitist Gatekeeper Approach
On the other end of the spectrum is the Elitist Gatekeeper Approach. The Elitist Gatekeeper is often an instructor with traditional views about language instruction, who may lack awareness of diverse legal English needs and who conflates legal English teaching with Common Law teaching.
Like the Well-Meaning but Clueless teacher, the Elitist Gatekeeper:
❌ Has had very little or no contact with global law practice.
❌ May not recognize that learners of legal English are often legal professionals with valuable experiences and ideas about the law and how it operates outside the Common Law world.
❌ Often fails to acknowledge that, although English is the lingua franca of the legal world, in global law practice, Common Law and Common Law analysis are only relevant in a few select countries.
The Elitist Gatekeeper insists on teaching the Common Law way. However, in your work as a global legal professional, your practice often reflects a more diverse and globalized world. The Elitist Gatekeeper might respond with phrases like, “That’s just how we do things here,” which can be dismissive when learners question the relevance of the instruction.
This situation can also raise some ethical concerns.
👉 Unrealistic Focus: Yes, English is the language of global law practice. But some studies show that more than 75% of users speak English as a second or foreign language, and transactions involving Common Law countries represent only a minority of the work. So why should learners be required to learn Common Law methodology if most of their work involves jurisdictions with little or no connection to it?
Ultimately, the Elitist Gatekeeper’s approach might reinforce outdated views about English, which can be challenging for ethnically and linguistically minoritized groups. He or she may not recognize your unique background and needs, particularly if you are not from a Common Law country and do not plan to use your legal English skills in one.
III. The Practical Global Approach
The alternative to these flawed methods is the Practical Global Approach. The Practical Global Approach is what I’m calling my own methodology, which I believe addresses the reality of global law practice and the needs of diverse legal professionals.
The Practical Global Approach focuses on preparing learners for real-world legal communication across jurisdictions, acknowledging that legal professionals need more than just Common Law analysis or basic English skills. This approach recognizes that:
✅ Legal English is not just Common Law English. It encompasses a broad range of legal systems, including Civil Law, Hybrid jurisdictions, and international organizations.
✅ Learners need to be taught relevant legal terminology, cross-cultural communication skills, and legal reasoning that apply to various legal systems and practices.
✅ English is the lingua franca of the legal world, but it is used differently in global law practice, depending on the jurisdiction, the type of law, and the real-world needs of its users.
With the Practical Global Approach, my hope is that instructors will teach comparative law concepts and emphasize legal communication strategies that allow learners to navigate between legal systems. Instead of dismissing learners’ experiences, this approach values their unique perspectives and integrates their knowledge into the learning process.
The goal of the Practical Global Approach is not to force learners to conform to a single legal tradition but to empower them to use English effectively in global, multilingual legal contexts, preparing them for success in real-world legal practice.
IV. What the Practical Global Approach looks like In a Real Legal English Class
I’m sharing one of my one-on-one class workbooks for free in this post.
Download it here—no strings attached. In it, you’ll find:
👉 a case study from both a language and law perspective
👉 a glossary of 20 terms relevant to the case to equip my students to confidently discuss the case
👉 9 phrasal verbs for my students to practice using with me when discussing the case
👉 and a diagram to help my students understand the law relevant to case and its language
This isn’t just a glimpse into what a legal English class with me involves. It’s a practical tool designed to give my students a fresh perspective on learning and applying legal English in real-world contexts.
This is what I mean, in practical terms, when I say we need to do things better.
Sound like a good way to learn? Book a free discovery call with me to find out how I can help you master legal English.
Comments