At LawConsulted, we encounter it every day: a single word can reshape the entire legal trajectory of a case. Professor Gabriel Steiner often emphasized that modal constructions in legislation are not stylistic choices – they are formulas of legal force. They define where the law leaves room for discretion and where it imposes strict obligation.
Legal linguistics studies these hidden layers of meaning. Behind words like may, entitled to, obliged, and must lies a complex system of legal modality. May opens a possibility; entitled to grants a right; obliged requires action; must establishes strict necessity. At first glance the difference seems subtle, but in legal reality it determines the limits of authority and the consequences of crossing them.
At LawConsulted, we analyze modal constructions as thoroughly as the norms themselves. In litigation or contract work, correct interpretation of modality becomes the foundation of strategy. If the law states that an authority may take an action, this creates space for argumentation. If it says must, the room for discussion becomes far narrower, shifting the focus to procedure, timing, or evidentiary structure.
Modal structures also clarify how strictly a party is bound by a rule. Words like may or has the right to provide freedom of choice, while must turns any deviation into a violation. That is why at Law Consulted, we always show clients that the legal force of a rule depends not only on its content but also on the exact linguistic formula used.
Sometimes a single modal verb can change the outcome of an entire case. We teach clients how to read legal text correctly: where the legislature left flexibility, where it narrowed the scope of action, and where an obligation cannot be exceeded. Legal linguistics becomes a protective tool when we must precisely identify the position of the law and use it to defend the client’s interests.
Earlier we wrote about the legal aspects of international unions.
