Legalese

I've occasionally described "Legalese" as "a language used by lawyers, which bears a deceptive similarity to English".  And I point out that people often err in assuming that a particular word in Legalese bears anything like the meaning in Legalese that it bears in English.

 

Now, I read a Constitutional Law Professor saying much the same thing. (I'm assuming he wrote the following in English, in which case it means what it says -- as opposed to Legalese, in which case it might not.)

...actually the panel reasoned that Hatfill failed to prove that the columns were published with what libel law calls "actual malice": "that The Times had knowledge that the columns were false or published them with reckless disregard of whether they were false." "Actual malice" is thus a legal term of art that has little to do with what English speakers actually call malice (in the sense of ill will).

So this is partly the fault of the lawyers. You'd hope that "malice" in law would mean what "malice" means in English, but if it doesn't, at least you'd hope that "actual malice" would actually mean that. No such luck.