15 Legal English Mistakes That Can Make You Sound Unprofessional

Precise vocabulary matters when you explain a dispute to a client or colleague. This lesson uses a fictional short-supply dispute to correct fifteen expressions that commonly sound unnatural or inaccurate in Legal English.

Watch the lesson: Legal English Mistakes That Make You Sound Unprofessional

Instructions

Instructions: Read the story. The numbered bold expressions you find in the story are not the correct legal terms. Replace each one with the appropriate expression from the word bank.

Word Bank

a) delays | b) fixed price | c) losses | d) competitor

Background

Emma’s client, Halden Manufacturing Ltd, makes precision components for the automotive industry. Eighteen months ago, Halden signed a three-year supply contract with Corvex Metals PLC: Halden agreed to buy all its titanium alloy sheeting exclusively from Corvex at a (1) ) fixed price, and in exchange Corvex promised guaranteed priority delivery if supplies ever ran short.

Six months later, a global titanium shortage hit the market. Corvex began quietly diverting shipments to other customers willing to pay above the fixed contract price, while telling Halden that “supply chain (2) delays” explained the late deliveries. Halden’s production line shut down twice as a result, causing significant (3) losses. The truth only came out when a Corvex sales rep’s email was leaked, revealing that stock earmarked for Halden had been sold to a (4) competitor at a higher price.

Word Bank:

e) back and forth | f) amicable settlement | g) pre-mediation meeting | h) instructed

The dispute

Once Halden discovered the leaked email, the company (5) instructed Emma to act. Rather than going straight to court, the parties first agreed to try mediation. Before it took place, the lawyers on both sides attended a (6) ) pre-mediation meeting to agree the timetable and exchange key documents, including the leaked email and Corvex’s shipping records.

In the weeks that followed, there was a great deal of (7) back and forth correspondence between the parties by email, as Emma pushed for compensation and Corvex continued to deny any wrongdoing. Emma’s client genuinely hoped to reach an (8) amicable settlement without the cost and delay of court proceedings, but Corvex rejected every proposal Emma put forward.

Word Bank:

|i) challenge | j) acting in bad faith | k) started litigation

With settlement talks going nowhere, Halden ran out of patience and (9) started litigation against Corvex, while remaining open to a negotiated outcome if Corvex changed its position.

Once proceedings were underway, Emma set out the core of Halden’s case: Corvex had been (10) acting in bad faith by secretly selling Halden’s contracted stock to a third party while telling Halden the delays were unavoidable. Corvex’s lawyers tried to (11) challenge this argument, claiming a “reasonable efforts” clause excused their conduct during a shortage.

Word Bank:

l) applicable law | m) make a counterclaim | n) going to trial | o) threat

Emma was confident the court would reject this defence, since the contract clearly named English law as the (12) applicable law and English courts had little sympathy for suppliers who prioritised profit over existing contractual promises.

Realising their main defence was weak, Corvex changed tactics: they threatened to (13) make a counterclaim, pointing to a single Halden invoice that had been paid two weeks late, in the hope of pressuring Halden into dropping the case.

Emma advised her client not to be distracted by this (14) threat.

With Corvex refusing to shift its position and the counterclaim proving weak, both sides accepted that the case was now (15) going to trial.

Fifteen corrections

Avoid	Use	Why?
1. set amount	b) fixed price	“Set amount” is understandable but less precise in this context. A fixed price is a price agreed by the parties that does not change during the contract, unless the contract provides otherwise. It is a standard commercial contract term.
2. supply-chain waits	a) delays	“Supply-chain waits” is unnatural English. The usual expression is supply-chain delays, meaning disruptions that cause goods or materials to arrive later than expected.
3. significant prejudices	c) losses	This is incorrect in the context of financial harm. In British legal English, loss refers to financial or other legally recognised harm suffered by a party. “Prejudice” can mean disadvantage or harm to a party’s rights or position, but it is not normally used as a countable noun for financial losses. The correct expression here is significant losses.
4. rival buyer	d) competitor	“Rival buyer” is not necessarily incorrect, but it is less precise if the buyer competes with Halden in the same market. A competitor is a business competing with another business for customers or market share. Two buyers of the same product are not necessarily competitors.
5. got Emma to act	h) instructed	“Got Emma to act” is informal and imprecise. In British legal English, a client instructs a solicitor to act on their behalf. “Instruct” is the standard verb for formally engaging a lawyer to provide legal services.
6. a pre-mediation	g) pre-mediation meeting	“Pre-mediation” is commonly used as an adjective to describe something happening before mediation. On its own, “a pre-mediation” sounds incomplete or unnatural here. A pre-mediation meeting is a meeting held before the mediation to discuss arrangements, procedures or preparation.
7. negotiations correspondence	e) back-and-forth	“Negotiations correspondence” is unnatural. Back-and-forth correspondence emphasises repeated exchanges of letters or emails between parties. “Correspondence relating to negotiations” is also correct, but does not emphasise the repeated exchanges.
8. friendly solution	f) amicable settlement	“Friendly solution” is understandable but not the usual legal expression. An amicable settlement is an agreed resolution of a dispute reached through negotiation or cooperation, rather than a contested court judgment. The parties do not necessarily have to like each other or remain friends.
9. did a legal action	k) started litigation	“Did a legal action” is an incorrect collocation. In British legal English, we can say start litigation, bring proceedings, issue proceedings or bring a claim. The correct verb depends on the context. “Issue proceedings” particularly refers to formally commencing proceedings through the court.
10. behaving dishonestly	j) acting in bad faith	“Behaving dishonestly” is correct English, but acting in bad faith is a more specific legal expression. It can describe conduct involving dishonesty, an improper purpose or a lack of genuine intention to act as represented. The usual collocation is act in bad faith. The precise legal consequences depend on the circumstances and applicable law.
11. dispute this argument	i) challenge	“Dispute an argument” is not grammatically incorrect, but challenge an argument is a more natural collocation in British legal English. Lawyers commonly dispute facts, allegations or claims, but challenge arguments, decisions or evidence by questioning their validity or strength.
12. law applying	l) applicable law	“Law applying” is unnatural in this sentence. Applicable law means the law that applies to a particular contract, issue or dispute. In contracts, governing law is also commonly used to identify the legal system governing the agreement, for example, “This agreement is governed by English law.”
13. bring its own claim in response	m) make a counterclaim	The original expression is understandable but unnecessarily long. A counterclaim is a claim made by a defendant against the claimant in existing proceedings. In British civil litigation, a defendant can make or bring a counterclaim. A counterclaim is distinct from simply defending the original claim.
14. intimidation	o) threat	“Intimidation” is correct English but focuses on frightening or pressuring someone. A threat is an indication that someone may take a particular action, often to pressure another person. Here, Corvex’s threat to make a counterclaim is the specific action being discussed. A threat of legal proceedings is not necessarily unlawful.
15. appearing before a judge	n) going to trial	“Appearing before a judge” is correct English but does not necessarily mean that a trial is taking place. A party may appear before a judge at an interim or procedural hearing. Going to trial means that the case is proceeding to a trial, where the court will hear the case and determine the disputed issues.

Important collocations

Verb	Noun or phrase	Example
instruct	a lawyer	The company instructed Emma to act.
reach	an amicable settlement	The parties hoped to reach an amicable settlement.
bring / start	proceedings / litigation	Halden brought proceedings against Corvex.
act	in bad faith	The supplier was alleged to have acted in bad faith.
challenge	an argument / decision	Corvex challenged Halden’s interpretation.
make / bring	a counterclaim	The defendant made a counterclaim.
go	to trial	The case is going to trial.

Lesson links and materials

🥇 Ways to learn Legal English

Note: Legal information changes and develops, so please note that information may have become out of date. For content which is updated regularly check out my courses.