I agree with Kevin Beach's contention that Latin can be more efficient than English, but disagree that its use should be encouraged (see [2004] Gazette, 5 February, 15).

Expressions such as inter alia or ad hoc are snappier than their cumbersome English equivalents.

However, we must also nota bene that English is the lingua franca of international legal agreements.

Many non-native speaking lawyers have trouble enough coping with the peculiarities of legal English per se without being expected to grasp the significance of odd snippets of Latin and French thrown in apparently par hasard.

The approach of native speaking lawyers vis--vis the use of foreign terminology should not be to create a coterie of the cognoscenti, but to put real effort into making legal language more user-friendly on a global scale.

If foreign lawyers are obliging enough to use the English language instead of insisting on using their own, it seems churlish to make it unnecessarily hard for them: pace Beach, all too often the use of foreign terminology arises not from a desire for efficiency but from pure verbal snobbery.

Reducing its use can only strengthen the hand of English in international transactions still further - which can only be good for English lawyers.

The use of per se, incidentally, causes great amusement in Finland - perse is Finnish for arse.

Rupert Haigh, Forum Legal Language Services, Helsinki