@Phil 00:29 Jul 2, 2016
Your argument that lawyers have a vested interest in making things sound more complicated, whether true or not, is beside the point. The functional purpose of legal document translation is to provide the reader of the target language with a clear, nuanced and accurate account of what the source text says. If the source text itself is complicated, complex, repetitive, boring, pretentious, etc., it's not our job to simplify it, explain what it means, omit repetition, enliven it or colloquialise it.
Apart from anything else, what do we gain by leaving stuff out of a legal translation? We're not the drafter's copy editor.
Are we to presume we know the drafter's mind better than he or she does?
It really comes down to understanding our role in the supply chain. I'm all for plain language in legal documents, but that's a choice for the source text's drafter, not us.
We often find mistakes in a legal text, bits of phrases that might have been left in from a previous draft. Should we leave them out too? There is also a lot of information in legal documents that an "ordinary reader" might not even notice: serial numbers, stamps, signatures, etc., what about that? | 
peer agreement (net): +2