I. Overview Table
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability Name | Standardized Expression of Legal Terminology |
| Capability Type | Basic atomic capability (text layer) |
| Applicable Scenarios | Generation, review, modification, and translation of all legal texts |
| Core Objective | Ensure that legal terminology is accurately worded, unambiguous, and compliant with legal stylistic norms |
| Input | Text fragments containing legal terminology (or that should use legal terminology) |
| Output | Text after terminology standardization, with explanations of terminology corrections |
| Prerequisite Dependencies | Basic understanding of the legal field involved |
| Downstream Capabilities | All legal writing capabilities, including contract drafting, pleading writing, legal opinion writing, regulatory interpretation, etc. |
| Risk Level | High (terminology errors may lead to defects in legal effect, deviations in rights and obligations, and loss of litigation) |
II. Legal Notice
Important Notice: This skill document only provides operational guidance for AI agents on the standardized expression of legal terminology and does not constitute legal advice. The final confirmation of legal terminology should be based on currently effective legal and regulatory texts, judicial interpretations, and official terminology standards. In legal documents involving major rights and interests, the use of terminology should be reviewed and confirmed by a practicing lawyer. Different jurisdictions and different legal departments may use different terminology for the same concept, and the agent should choose the appropriate expression according to the specific context.
III. Core Concepts
3.1 What Is Standardized Expression of Legal Terminology
Standardized expression of legal terminology refers to the use in legal texts ofprofessional vocabulary and fixed expressions recognized by the legal community and having determinate legal meaning, in order to achieve the precision, rigor, and uniformity of legal texts.
3.2 The Three Dimensions of Standardized Expression
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ 法律术语规范表达三维度 │
├───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┤
│ 准确性 │ 统一性 │ 文体性 │
│ (Accuracy) │ (Consistency)│ (Formality) │
├───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤
│ 术语含义与法律 │ 同一文本中同 │ 符合法律文书 │
│ 规定精确对应， │ 一概念使用同 │ 的庄重、严谨 │
│ 不产生歧义 │ 一术语，不随 │ 文风，避免口 │
│ │ 意替换近义词 │ 语化、文学化 │
└───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┘
3.3 Source Hierarchy for Terminology Standardization
The standardization of legal terminology should be determined according to the following priority order:
| Priority | Legal Source | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Original text of laws and regulations | Terminology used in the Constitution, laws, and administrative regulations is the highest authority |
| 2 | Judicial interpretations | Terminology in judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate |
| 3 | Official terminology standards | Legal terminology norms involved in national standards such as GB/T 15834 |
| 4 | Authoritative legal works | Common expressions in mainstream textbooks and legal dictionaries |
| 5 | Judicial practice conventions | Expressions that have been used stably over the long term in judicial documents |
3.4 Core Principles of Terminology Standardization
- Principle of statutory priority: Where laws and regulations have explicit wording, the statutory wording must be used
- Principle of identity: In the same text, the same concept shall be expressed using only the same term
- Principle of precision: The extension and intension of a term must fully correspond to the legal concept to which it refers
- Principle of contextual adaptation: The same term may have different meanings in different legal departments and must be selected according to context
- Principle of timeliness: Terms shall remain consistent with currently effective law, and attention shall be paid to terminological changes brought about by legal amendments
IV. Core Table of Standardized Legal Terminology Comparison
4.1 Comparison Table of High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Civil Law Field)
| No. | ❌ Incorrect/non-standard expression | ✅ Standard expression | Legal source basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deposit/earnest money (used interchangeably) | Deposit / Earnest money | Articles 586-587 of the Civil Code | A deposit has security effect (the deposit penalty rule applies); earnest money is merely an advance payment and has no security effect, and the two must be strictly distinguished |
| 2 | Liquidated damages/compensation (used interchangeably) | Liquidated damages / Damages | Article 585 and Article 584 of the Civil Code | Liquidated damages are contractual liability; damages are statutory or contractual compensatory compensation |
| 3 | Guarantee/security (used broadly) | Suretyship / Mortgage / Pledge / Lien / Deposit | Security Part of the Civil Code | "Security" is a superordinate concept, and the specific method must be clearly indicated |
| 4 | Rescission of contract/termination of contract | Rescission / Termination | Article 557 and Articles 562-566 of the Civil Code | Rescission points to future extinguishment plus possible retroactive effect; termination refers to the extinguishment of the contractual rights and obligations relationship |
| 5 | Force majeure/fortuitous event | Force majeure / Fortuitous event | Article 180 of the Civil Code | Force majeure: unforeseeable, unavoidable, and insurmountable; a fortuitous event is not a statutory ground for exemption from liability |
| 6 | Limitation of action/exclusion period | Limitation of action / Exclusion period | Article 188 and Article 199 of the Civil Code | The limitation of action may be interrupted or suspended; the exclusion period is a fixed period, and upon expiration the right is extinguished |
| 7 | Good faith/bad faith | Good faith / Bad faith | Article 311 et seq. of the Civil Code | Good faith in law means "not knowing and not being required to know," not a moral evaluation |
| 8 | Void/voidable/effectiveness pending determination | Use separately | Articles 144-157 of the Civil Code | The legal consequences of the three are completely different and must not be confused |
| 9 | Joint and several liability/several liability/supplementary liability | Use separately | Articles 177-178 of the Civil Code | The forms of liability differ and have a major impact on the rights and obligations of the parties |
| 10 | Ownership/right of use/right to proceeds | Express separately according to the powers and functions | Article 240 of the Civil Code | Ownership includes four powers: possession, use, income, and disposition |
4.2 Comparison Table of Frequently Confused Terms (Criminal Field)
| No. | ❌ Incorrect/nonstandard expression | ✅ Standard expression | Legal basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Criminal suspect/defendant (used interchangeably) | Criminal suspect(investigation and examination for prosecution stages) / Defendant(trial stage) | Criminal Procedure Law Article 12 et seq. | The title differs by stage and must not be used interchangeably |
| 12 | Detention/arrest/summons for custody | Use separately | Criminal Procedure Law Chapter VI | The types of compulsory measures differ, and the conditions and time limits for application vary |
| 13 | Voluntary surrender/confession | Voluntary surrender / Confession | Criminal Law Article 67 | Voluntary surrender: voluntarily surrendering to justice + truthfully confessing; confession: truthfully confessing after being apprehended passively |
| 14 | Principal offender/accessory offender/coerced offender | Use separately | Criminal Law Articles 26-28 | The roles in joint crime differ, and sentencing differs significantly |
| 15 | Intent/negligence (generalized) | Direct intent / Indirect intent / Negligence due to carelessness / Negligence due to overconfidence | Criminal Law Articles 14-15 | The four forms of the subjective aspect must be stated precisely |
| 16 | Suspended sentence/parole/commutation of sentence | Use separately | Criminal Law Articles 72-86 | The applicable conditions and legal effects of the three are completely different |
| 17 | Fine/administrative fine | Fine(criminal) / Administrative fine(administrative) | Criminal Law Article 52; Administrative Penalty Law | A fine is an accessory penalty in criminal punishment; an administrative fine is an administrative penalty, fundamentally different in nature |
| 18 | Recidivist/reoffender | Recidivist / Reoffender | Criminal Law Articles 65-66 | Recidivist has strict statutory conditions; reoffender is a general term |
4.3 Comparison Table of Frequently Confused Terms (Administrative Field)
| No. | ❌ Incorrect/nonstandard expression | ✅ Standard expression | Legal basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | Administrative penalty/administrative disciplinary action | Administrative penalty(external) / Administrative disciplinary action(internal) | Administrative Penalty Law/Civil Servant Law | Penalty is directed at the administrative counterpart; disciplinary action is directed at civil servants |
| 20 | Administrative license/administrative approval | Administrative license | Administrative License Law Article 2 | "Administrative approval" is not a strict legal term; standard texts should use "administrative license" |
| 21 | Administrative reconsideration/administrative litigation | Use separately | Administrative Reconsideration Law/Administrative Litigation Law | The remedies differ and must not be confused |
| 22 | Specific administrative act/administrative act | Administrative act | 2014 revision of the Administrative Litigation Law | The new law has uniformly adopted "administrative act" and no longer distinguishes between "specific" and "abstract" |
| 23 | Revocation of license/cancellation/annulment | Use separately | Individual statutes | Revocation of license is a penalty; cancellation is error correction; annulment is procedural termination |
4.4 Comparison Table of High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Litigation Procedure Field)
| No. | ❌ Incorrect/nonstandard expression | ✅ Standard expression | Legal source basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Plaintiff/applicant (used interchangeably) | Plaintiff(litigation) / Applicant(arbitration/non-contentious proceedings) | Civil Procedure Law / Arbitration Law | Different procedures have different designations |
| 25 | Appeal/retrial petition/application for retrial | Use separately | Relevant chapters of the Civil Procedure Law | Appeal is directed at a judgment that has not taken effect; application for retrial is directed at a judgment that has taken effect |
| 26 | Ruling/judgment/decision | Use separately | Civil Procedure Law | Rulings resolve procedural issues; judgments resolve substantive issues; decisions resolve litigation management issues |
| 27 | Jurisdiction/competence | Use according to context | Chapter II of the Civil Procedure Law | "Jurisdiction" refers to the system; "competence" refers to the authority of a specific court |
| 28 | Evidence/proof/probative force | Use separately | Chapter VI of the Civil Procedure Law | Evidence is material; proof is activity; probative force is the strength of the effect of evidence |
| 29 | Dismissal of the action/dismissal of the claim | Use separately | Civil Procedure Law | Dismissal of the action: does not meet the conditions for bringing an action (ruling); dismissal of the claim: no substantive grounds (judgment) |
| 30 | Suspension/termination/interruption | Use separately | Various procedural laws | Suspension is pause; termination is ending; interruption is a concept in the limitation system |
4.5 Comparison Table of High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Contract and Commercial Field)
| No. | ❌ Incorrect/nonstandard expression | ✅ Standard expression | Legal source basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | Party A/Party B (unclear) | Lessor/lessee、Seller/buyer、Principal/agent etc. | Contract Part of the Civil Code | Statutory designations should be used, with abbreviations noted in parentheses when first appearing |
| 32 | Interest/interest rate | Use separately | Article 680 of the Civil Code | Interest is an amount; interest rate is a ratio |
| 33 | Force majeure/change of circumstances | Use separately | Articles 180 and 533 of the Civil Code | Force majeure leads to impossibility of performance; change of circumstances leads to obvious unfairness |
| 34 | Offer/invitation to offer | Use separately | Articles 472-473 of the Civil Code | An offer has legal binding force; an invitation to offer does not |
| 35 | Subrogation right/Right of revocation | Use separately | Articles 535-542 of the Civil Code | The subrogation right is asserted against the secondary debtor; the right of revocation targets the debtor's improper acts |
| 36 | Shareholder/Stock investor/Investor | Shareholder | Company Law | In legal texts, "shareholder" should be used; "stock investor" and "investor" are non-legal terms |
| 37 | Legal representative/Corporate representative | Legal representative | Article 61 of the Civil Code | "Corporate representative" is an incorrect expression; this concept does not exist in law |
| 38 | Official seal/Contract-specific seal | Use separately and specify clearly | Relevant judicial interpretations | The legal effect of different seals may differ |
4.6 Comparison Table of High-Frequency Easily Confused Terms (Other Important Terms)
| No. | ❌ Incorrect/non-standard expression | ✅ Standard expression | Legal source basis | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39 | Right/Power | Right(private law)/ Power(public law) | General theory of jurisprudence | Right is enjoyed by private subjects; power is exercised by public authority organs |
| 40 | Legal person/Legal representative/Natural person | Use separately | Article 57 et seq. of the Civil Code | A legal person is an organizational entity, not a natural person; a legal person must not be equated with its person in charge |
| 41 | Tort/Breach of contract | Use separately | Tort Part/Contract Part of the Civil Code | The basis of the claim is different, and the constitutive requirements are different |
| 42 | Defense/Right of defense | Use separately | Jurisprudence/Civil Code | Defense is a broad form of defense; the right of defense is a specific right to counter a claim |
| 43 | Limitation period for prosecution/Limitation of action | Limitation period for prosecution(criminal)/ Limitation of action(civil) | Article 87 of the Criminal Law/Article 188 of the Civil Code | They belong to different legal departments and must not be used interchangeably |
| 44 | Compensation/Damages | Compensation(unlawful act)/ Damages(lawful act) | State Compensation Law/Land Administration Law, etc. | Compensation is based on unlawfulness; damages are based on losses caused by lawful acts |
| 45 | Law/Administrative regulation/Rule | Use separately according to the hierarchy of legal effect | Legislation Law | Law (National People's Congress and its Standing Committee), administrative regulation (State Council), rule (department/local government) |
| 46 | Shall/Must/May | Use separately according to the nature of the norm | Legislative technical norms | "Shall" is an obligatory norm; "may" is an authorizing norm; "must" has the strongest tone |
| 47 | Above/Below/Within | Specify whether the number itself is included | Article 1259 of the Civil Code; Article 99 of the Criminal Law | In criminal law and civil law, "above" and "below" and "within" generally all include the base figure |
| 48 | Day/working day/natural day | Use explicitly | Each procedural law | The methods of calculating time periods differ and must be explicitly specified |
| 49 | Effective/implemented/promulgated | Use separately | Legislation Law | Promulgation ≠ implementation ≠ effectiveness; the time points may differ |
| 50 | Intellectual property/copyright/patent right/trademark right | Use according to the specific type | Article 123 of the Civil Code | Intellectual property is a broader concept; the specific type of right must be specified |
V. Complete Workflow
5.1 Terminology Standardization Processing Workflow
输入：待处理法律文本
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤1：识别法律术语 │ ← 扫描文本中所有法律术语及疑似术语
│ 及潜在术语问题 │
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤2：确定法律领域 │ ← 判断文本所属法律部门（民事/刑事/行政/商事等）
│ 与文书类型 │ ← 判断文书类型（合同/诉状/判决书/意见书等）
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤3：逐一核验术语 │ ← 对照法源层级逐一验证术语准确性
│ │ ← 检查术语是否与所在法律部门匹配
│ │ ← 检查术语含义是否与语境吻合
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤4：一致性检查 │ ← 检查同一文本中同一概念是否使用同一术语
│ │ ← 检查术语首次出现时是否有必要的定义/说明
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤5：文体适配检查 │ ← 检查术语表达是否符合法律文体
│ │ ← 消除口语化、文学化、模糊化表达
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤6：时效性检查 │ ← 确认术语是否与现行有效法律一致
│ │ ← 注意已废止法律中的旧术语
└─────────┬───────────┘
│
▼
┌─────────────────────┐
│ 步骤7：输出规范化文本 │ ← 生成修正后文本
│ 及修正说明 │ ← 附术语修正对照表及理由
└─────────────────────┘
5.2 Detailed Operating Guidelines for Each Step
Step 1: Identify Legal Terms and Potential Issues
Key operating points:
- Scan the text sentence by sentence and mark all specialized legal terms
- Pay special attention to the following high-risk areas:
- Designations of parties (plaintiff/defendant/applicant/respondent, etc.)
- Descriptions of legal acts (rescind/terminate/revoke/withdraw, etc.)
- Forms of liability (joint and several liability/several liability/supplementary liability, etc.)
- Types of rights (ownership/right of use/creditor's right/real right, etc.)
- Procedural terms (jurisdiction/service/period/limitation, etc.)
- Expressions of quantity and time limits (above/below/day/working day, etc.)
- Mark expressions in everyday language that may need to be converted into legal terms
Step 2: Determine the Legal Field and Document Type
Key operating points:
- Determine the legal department to which it belongs based on the content of the text, because the same word may have different meanings in different departments
- Example: "limitation for prosecution" belongs to criminal law, "limitation of action" belongs to civil law
- Example: "fine" (as a criminal penalty) belongs to criminal law, "fine" (as an administrative penalty) belongs to administrative law
- Determine the stylistic requirements according to the document type
- Judicial documents: the strictest; statutory terminology must be fully followed
- Contract texts: strict, but the parties may agree on abbreviations
- Legal opinion letters: relatively strict; explanatory expressions may be appropriately used
- Legal memoranda: relatively flexible, but core terminology must still be standardized
Step 3: Verify the Terms One by One
Verification checklist:
□ 该术语是否有法律法规明确规定的表述？
→ 有：必须采用法定表述
→ 无：采用司法解释或通说表述
□ 该术语在当前法律部门语境下含义是否正确？
→ 例：刑事语境中不应出现"违约金"
□ 该术语的外延是否与所指对象精确匹配？
→ 例：不应用"担保"笼统替代"抵押"
□ 该术语是否为现行有效法律所使用？
→ 例：不应继续使用"经济合同"（已废止）
□ 该术语是否存在常见混淆对象？
→ 对照本文第四节术语对照表逐一排查
Step 4: Consistency Check
Key operating points:
- Establish a terminology index within the text to ensure that the same concept uses the same term throughout
- If an abbreviation is to be used, it should be clearly defined when it first appears
- Correct example:
甲方（以下简称"出租人"）❌ - Correct example:
出租人张三（以下简称"甲方"）✅
- Correct example:
- Check whether ambiguity arises from synonymous substitution
- Example: "rescind" is used earlier and "terminate" is used later to refer to the same act → ambiguity arises
Step 5: Style Adaptation Check
Legal stylistic requirements:
| Expressions to be avoided | Standard substitute expressions | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Colloquial expression | Written legal wording | "file a lawsuit" → "bring an action" |
| Vague qualifiers | Precise qualifiers | "大概""左右" → specific amount/date |
| literary rhetoric | plain and accurate expression | "sky-high compensation" → "the compensation amount is RMB XX yuan" |
| emotionally colored words | neutral legal terminology | "egregious conduct" → "illegal act" |
| abbreviated colloquial name | full statutory name | "compulsory traffic insurance" → "compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance" (on first occurrence) |
| internet slang | formal legal expression | "deadbeat" → "judgment debtor who has breached trust" |
Step 6: Timeliness check
Key legal changes to focus on:
| old terminology | new terminology | reason for change |
|---|---|---|
| economic contract | contract | the Economic Contract Law has been repealed |
| specific administrative act | administrative act | the 2014 amendment to the Administrative Litigation Law |
| general legal person/special legal person | for-profit legal person/non-profit legal person/special legal person | reclassification under the Civil Code |
| creditors' meeting | creditors' meeting (retained) | continued use under the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law |
| civil capacity | full civil capacity/limited civil capacity/no civil capacity | refinement under the Civil Code |
| two-year limitation period | three-year limitation period | amended by Article 188 of the Civil Code |
Step 7: Output the standardized text and correction notes
The output should contain two parts:
- the complete corrected text
- terminology correction comparison table(see the output format template)
VI. Verification and screening rules
6.1 Five-step method for terminology correctness verification
第一步：法条验证
→ 在现行有效法律法规中查找该术语的法定表述
→ 如找到，以法定表述为准
第二步：语境验证
→ 确认该术语在当前法律部门/语境中的含义
→ 排除跨部门术语混用
第三步：搭配验证
→ 确认术语与其修饰语、动词的搭配是否符合法律惯用表达
→ 例："承担违约责任"✅ "负担违约责任"⚠️ "背负违约责任"❌
第四步：逻辑验证
→ 确认术语在上下文中的逻辑关系是否成立
→ 例：不能在同一条款中既说"合同无效"又说"解除合同"
第五步：受众验证
→ 确认术语的使用是否适合目标读者
→ 面向法律专业人士：可直接使用专业术语
→ 面向非专业人士：核心术语后可附简要解释
6.2 Terminology selection decision tree
需要表达一个法律概念
│
▼
法律法规中是否有法定术语？
│ │
是 否
│ │
▼ ▼
使用法定术语 司法解释中是否有通用表述？
│ │
是 否
│ │
▼ ▼
使用司法解释 法学通说中是否有公认术语？
中的表述 │ │
是 否
│ │
▼ ▼
使用通说术语 构造描述性表达，
并加注说明
VII. Output format template
7.1 Terminology correction report template
## 法律术语规范化修正报告
**文本类型：** [合同/诉状/法律意见书/其他]
**所属领域：** [民事/刑事/行政/商事/其他]
**修正日期：** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**修正数量：** [N] 处
### 修正对照表
| 序号 | 原文位置 | 原始表达 | 修正表达 | 修正类型 | 修正理由 | 严重程度 |
|------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| 1 | 第X条 | XXX | XXX | 术语错误 | XXX | 🔴致命 |
| 2 | 第X条 | XXX | XXX | 术语不精确| XXX | 🟡警告 |
| 3 | 第X条 | XXX | XXX | 文体不当 | XXX | 🔵建议 |
### 修正类型说明
- **术语错误**：使用了错误的法律术语，可能导致法律效力问题
- **术语不精确**：术语使用不够精确，可能产生歧义
- **术语混淆**：混用了含义不同的近似术语
- **术语过时**：使用了已废止法律中的旧术语
- **文体不当**：表达方式不符合法律文体要求
- **一致性问题**：同一概念在文本中使用了不同术语
### 严重程度说明
- 🔴 **致命**：必须修正，否则可能导致法律效力瑕疵或重大误解
- 🟡 **警告**：建议修正，可能产生歧义或不够专业
- 🔵 **建议**：可选修正，属于文体优化层面
7.2 Terminology-standardized text output template
## 规范化后文本
[此处输出完整的修正后文本，修正处以**加粗**标注]
---
*注：加粗部分为本次术语规范化修正内容。*
VIII. Confidence level annotation system
When standardizing terminology, annotate each correction with a confidence level:
| confidence level | marker | meaning | applicable scenario |
|---|---|---|---|
| certain | [置信度：确定] |
terminology corrections supported by explicit legal provisions | replacement with statutory terminology, correction of obvious errors |
| high | [置信度：高] |
supported by judicial interpretation or prevailing doctrine | standardization of commonly used terminology, stylistic correction |
| medium | [置信度：中] |
judgment based on legal practice conventions | selection of the best among multiple acceptable expressions |
| low | [置信度：低] |
controversial or requiring further confirmation | terminology in emerging fields, regional differences |
Usage rules:
- Corrections with a confidence level of "certain" or "high" may be implemented directly
- Corrections with a confidence level of "medium" should be accompanied by an explanation, and user confirmation is recommended
- Corrections with a confidence level of "low" should be clearly marked as "suggestions," with the reasons for uncertainty explained
IX. Common errors and precautions
9.1 Fatal Error Table
| Error Number | Error Type | Error Example | Correct Expression | Possible Consequences | Preventive Measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-01 | Incorrect Subject Title | At the trial stage, referring to the "criminal suspect" | "Defendant" | Defect in the validity of the document | Determine the title according to the stage of proceedings |
| F-02 | Confusion of forms of liability | Writing joint and several liability as several liability | Determine according to legal provisions | Major impairment of the parties' rights | Check the form of liability in the legal provisions |
| F-03 | Incorrect status of contract validity | Describing a voidable contract as an invalid contract | Determine according to legal provisions | Error in application of law | Strictly distinguish invalid/voidable/pending validity |
| F-04 | Mixed use of criminal and civil terminology | Using "fine" in a civil document | "Liquidated damages" or "administrative fine" | Confusion of legal nature | Confirm the legal department to which the document belongs |
| F-05 | Incorrect reference to legal representative | "Corporate representative" | "Legal representative" | Conceptual error, showing unprofessionalism | Remember that "corporate representative" is not a legal term |
| F-06 | Confusion between deposit and earnest money | Writing "deposit" in a guarantee clause | "Earnest money" (if guarantee effect is needed) | Loss of protection under the earnest money penalty rule | Choose according to whether guarantee effect is needed |
| F-07 | Confusion between limitation of action and exclusion period | "Limitation of action for the right of rescission" | "Exclusion period for the right of rescission" | Fundamental error in application of law | Formative rights are subject to the exclusion period, while claims are subject to the limitation of action |
| F-08 | Incorrect type of adjudicative document | Using a "judgment" to dismiss a lawsuit | "Order" | Illegal form of the document | Use an order for procedural issues and a judgment for substantive issues |
| F-09 | Confusion between compensation and indemnity | Writing expropriation compensation as "damages" | "Compensation" | Implying that the act is illegal, causing disputes | Lawful act → compensation; unlawful act → damages |
| F-10 | Confusion between rights and powers | "Citizens' electoral power" | "Citizens' electoral right" | Fundamental error in legal concepts | Private subjects → rights; public authority organs → powers |
9.2 Common Traps
Trap 1: Literal interpretation trap
- Manifestation: Understanding legal terms according to everyday meaning
- Example: "Good faith" in "good faith acquisition" ≠ moral goodness, but "not knowing and not being obligated to know"
- Prevention: Always take the legal definition as the standard and do not infer from everyday meaning
Trap 2: Near-synonym substitution trap
- Manifestation: Replacing legal terms with near-synonyms to avoid repetition
- Example: Replace "rescind the contract" with "cancel the contract" "abolish the contract"
- Prevention: Legal terminology does not pursue literary lexical variety; the same concept must use the same term
Pitfall 3: Cross-departmental transplantation pitfall
- Manifestation: Transplanting terminology from one legal department to another
- Example: Writing "Party A shall be punished" in a civil contract ("punished" is a public law concept)
- Prevention: Confirm that the legal department to which the term belongs is consistent with the textual context
Pitfall 4: Old-law inertia pitfall
- Manifestation: Continuing to use old terminology that has been replaced by new law
- Example: Continuing to use "specific administrative act" (should be "administrative act")
- Prevention: Pay attention to legal amendment developments and regularly update the terminology database
Pitfall 5: Literal translation pitfall
- Manifestation: Literal translation of foreign legal terminology into Chinese, which does not conform to expression in the Chinese legal system
- Example: Literal translation of "consideration" as "对价" for use in the context of Chinese contract law
- Prevention: Use the corresponding terminology in the Chinese legal system, adding explanatory notes when necessary
Pitfall 6: Superordinate concept substitution pitfall
- Manifestation: Using a broad concept to vaguely replace a narrower concept that should be used precisely
- Example: Using "担保" to replace "抵押" or "质押", which should be specified
- Prevention: When precise expression is required, use the most specific narrower concept
Pitfall 7: Ambiguous quantitative boundary pitfall
- Manifestation: Failure to clarify whether the number itself is included when using expressions such as "以上" and "以下"
- Example: "Fixed-term imprisonment of three years or more" - does this include three years?
- Prevention: Note the provisions on the meaning of "以上" and "以下" in different laws (the Criminal Law explicitly includes the number itself), and clearly indicate when necessary
X. Special Scenario Handling
10.1 Handling of Terminology in Emerging Fields
For emerging fields such as data compliance, artificial intelligence, and blockchain:
处理策略：
1. 优先使用已有法律法规中的术语
→ 例：《个人信息保护法》中的"个人信息处理者"
2. 如无法定术语，使用官方文件中的表述
→ 例：国家标准、部门规章中的术语
3. 如均无，使用行业通行术语并加定义条款
→ 例："本协议所称'智能合约'，是指……"
4. 避免使用纯技术术语而不加法律界定
→ 例：不应直接使用"Token"，应界定为"数字凭证"或其他法律可理解的表达
10.2 Handling of Terminology in Foreign-related Legal Texts
处理策略：
1. 中文法律文本中的外国法律概念，应使用中国法律体系中的对应术语
2. 如无直接对应，应使用描述性表达并加注原文
→ 例："信托受益人（beneficiary）"
3. 双语合同中，应明确以哪种语言版本为准
4. 注意"假朋友"（false friends）——形似但含义不同的术语
→ 例：英美法中的"consideration"≠中国法中的"对价"（中国法无此概念）
10.3 Handling of Party-defined Terminology
处理策略：
1. 合同中当事人可以自定义术语，但不得与法律强制性规定冲突
2. 自定义术语应在合同"定义条款"中明确界定
3. 自定义术语不应与法定术语产生混淆
→ 错误示例：将"违约金"定义为包含"定金"的含义
4. 建议在自定义术语后括号标注其法律性质
→ 例："服务保证金（性质为定金）"
10.4 Scenarios for Popularized Explanation of Legal Terminology
处理策略：
当需要向非专业人士解释法律内容时：
1. 首先使用规范法律术语
2. 随后用括号或脚注提供通俗解释
→ 例："本案适用诉讼时效（即法律规定的起诉期限）为三年"
3. 通俗解释不得替代法律术语本身
4. 通俗解释应准确反映术语含义，不得过度简化导致误解
XI. Quality Inspection Checklist
After completing terminology standardization, check the following checklist item by item:
11.1 Basic Inspection
□ 所有法律术语是否与现行有效法律法规一致？
□ 是否存在已废止法律中的旧术语？
□ 主体称谓是否与诉讼阶段/程序类型匹配？
□ 责任形态表述是否准确（连带/按份/补充）？
□ 合同效力状态表述是否准确（有效/无效/可撤销/效力待定）？
□ 权利类型表述是否准确（物权/债权/知识产权等）？
11.2 Consistency Inspection
□ 同一概念在全文中是否使用同一术语？
□ 简称是否在首次出现时明确定义？
□ 术语的使用是否前后逻辑一致？
□ 引用法律条文时术语是否与原文完全一致？
11.3 Precision Inspection
□ 是否存在用上位概念替代应精确表达的下位概念？
□ 数量、期限表述是否明确（包含/不包含本数）？
□ "日"的表述是否明确（自然日/工作日）？
□ 金额表述是否规范（币种+大小写）？
□ 是否存在模糊限定词（"大约""左右""若干"等）？
11.4 Style Inspection
□ 是否消除了所有口语化表达？
□ 是否消除了所有情感色彩词？
□ 是否消除了所有网络用语/俗语？
□ 法律文书的庄重性是否得到保持？
□ 被动语态/主动语态的使用是否符合法律文体惯例？
11.5 Special Inspection
□ 涉外术语是否正确对应？
□ 新兴领域术语是否有充分界定？
□ 当事人自定义术语是否不与法定术语冲突？
□ 每项修正是否标注了置信度？
□ 致命级修正是否全部处理？
XII. Complete Examples
Example 1: Simple Scenario—Terminology Standardization of Contract Clauses
Input Text
第五条 违约条款
1. 如甲方未按时交货，乙方有权取消合同，并要求甲方赔偿订金的双倍。
2. 因天灾人祸等意外事件导致不能交货的，甲方不用负责。
3. 双方发生纠纷的，可以打官司解决，诉讼有效期为两年。
4. 甲方的法人代表应在合同上签字盖章。
Output
Terminology Correction Report:
| No. | Original Text Location | Original Expression | Corrected Expression | Correction Type | Reason for Correction | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Article 5.1 | cancel the contract | rescind the contract | Terminology error | "Cancel" is not a legal term; "rescission" as provided in Articles 562-566 of the Civil Code should be used | 🔴Fatal |
| 2 | Article 5.1 | double the deposit | double the earnest money | Terminology confusion | The application of the earnest money penalty rule requires the use of "earnest money" (Article 587 of the Civil Code); "deposit" does not have the effect of double return | 🔴Fatal |
| 3 | Article 5.2 | accidents such as natural disasters and man-made calamities | force majeure | Imprecise terminology | Neither "natural disasters and man-made calamities" nor "accidents" is an accurate formulation of a statutory exemption ground; "force majeure" should be used (Article 180 of the Civil Code) | 🔴Fatal |
| 4 | Article 5.2 | not responsible | not bear liability for breach of contract | Inappropriate style | "Not responsible" is a colloquial expression; "not bear liability for breach of contract" should be used | 🟡Warning |
| 5 | Article 5.3 | go to court | file a lawsuit with the people's court having jurisdiction | Inappropriate style | "Go to court" is a colloquial expression | 🟡Warning |
| 6 | Article 5.3 | The limitation period for litigation is two years | The limitation period for litigation is three years | Incorrect terminology + incorrect content | ①"Limitation period for litigation" should be "limitation period"; ②Article 188 of the Civil Code provides that the general limitation period is three years, not two years | 🔴Fatal |
| 7 | Article 5.4 | legal person representative | legal representative | Incorrect terminology | "Legal representative" is not a legal term; it should be "legal representative" (Article 61 of the Civil Code) | 🔴Fatal |
Revised text:
第五条 违约责任
1. 如出卖人未按约定期限交付标的物，买受人有权**解除**合同，并要求出卖人
双倍返还**定金**（《民法典》第五百八十七条）。
2. 因**不可抗力**导致不能交付标的物的，出卖人**不承担违约责任**，但应当
及时通知买受人并在合理期限内提供证明（《民法典》第五百九十条）。
3. 双方因履行本合同发生争议的，可**向有管辖权的人民法院提起诉讼**。
本合同项下纠纷的**诉讼时效期间**依照法律规定执行。
4. 出卖人的**法定代表人**或授权代表应在本合同上签字并加盖公章。
[置信度：确定] — All corrections are supported by explicit legal provisions.
Example 2: Complex scenario — Standardization of terminology in a criminal defense statement
Input text
尊敬的审判长、审判员：
我受犯罪嫌疑人王某的委托，担任其辩护律师。现就本案发表如下辩护意见：
一、关于犯罪事实
犯罪嫌疑人王某系初犯，且在被抓获后主动交代了全部犯罪事实，属于自首，
依法可以减轻处罚。
二、关于量刑
犯罪嫌疑人王某犯罪情节较轻，建议法院判处缓期执行。王某已向被害方赔偿
了全部损失并取得谅解，具有悔过表现。
三、关于附带民事赔偿
犯罪嫌疑人已支付了全部赔偿金，包括医药费、误工费和精神赔偿金共计
十万元左右。
综上，请求法院对犯罪嫌疑人从轻处罚。
辩护人：李律师
2024年X月X日
Output
Terminology correction report:
| No. | Original location | Original expression | Corrected expression | Correction type | Reason for correction | Severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Full text (7 places) | criminal suspect | defendant | Terminology error | A defense statement is submitted at the trial stage; at this point the person should be called "defendant" rather than "criminal suspect" (Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Law: No person shall be found guilty without a judgment rendered by a people's court in accordance with the law) | 🔴Fatal |
| 2 | Part One | voluntarily confessed after being captured | truthfully confessed his crimes after being brought to justice | Imprecise terminology + incorrect characterization | Confessing after being captured constitutes "leniency" rather than "voluntary surrender." Voluntary surrender requires "voluntarily surrendering to justice" (Article 67, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law); truthfully confessing after being passively brought to justice constitutes "leniency" (Article 67, Paragraph 3) | 🔴Fatal |
| 3 | Part One | voluntary surrender | leniency(if indeed passively brought to justice) | Terminology error | Same as above. If indeed passively brought to justice, voluntary surrender is not constituted and it should be characterized as leniency | 🔴Fatal |
| 4 | Part One | may have the punishment reduced | Leniency:may have the punishment mitigated; voluntary surrender:may have the punishment mitigated or reduced | Imprecise terminology | The statutory sentencing circumstance for leniency is "may have the punishment mitigated," not "reduced" (Article 67, Paragraph 3 of the Criminal Law) | 🔴Fatal |
| 5 | Part Two | suspended execution | probation | Terminology confusion | "Suspended execution" usually refers to suspended execution of the death penalty (death sentence with reprieve); in this context it should be "pronouncement of probation" (Article 72 of the Criminal Law) | 🔴Fatal |
| 6 | Part Two | expression of repentance | expression of remorse | Imprecise terminology | The legal term is "expression of remorse" (one of the conditions for applying probation under Article 72 of the Criminal Law) | 🟡Warning |
| 7 | Part Three | incidental civil compensation | compensation in an incidental civil action or civil compensation | Imprecise terminology | It should be clarified whether an incidental civil action in a criminal case has been filed (Article 101 of the Criminal Procedure Law) | 🟡Warning |
| 8 | Part Three | mental compensation | compensation for mental damage(Note: Generally not supported in criminal incidental civil actions) | Imprecise terminology + issue of legal application | ①The standard expression is "compensation for mental distress"; ②According to judicial interpretations, claims for compensation for mental distress are generally not accepted in criminal incidental civil actions | 🔴Fatal |
| 9 | Part Three | Around one hundred thousand yuan | RMB One Hundred Thousand Yuan (¥100,000.00)(or a specific amount) | Improper style | "Around" is a vague expression; in legal documents, amounts must be precise and the currency should be indicated | 🟡Warning |
| 10 | Signature block | Lawyer Li | Defender: Li XX, Lawyer at XX Law Firm | Improper style | The signature block of a defense statement should state the defender's full name and practicing institution | 🟡Warning |
Revised text:
尊敬的审判长、审判员：
北京XX律师事务所接受**被告人**王某的委托，指派我担任其辩护人。
现根据事实和法律，发表如下辩护意见：
一、关于量刑情节
**被告人**王某系初犯、偶犯，且在**归案后如实供述自己的罪行**，
依照《中华人民共和国刑法》第六十七条第三款之规定，属于**坦白**，
**可以从轻处罚**。
二、关于量刑建议
**被告人**王某犯罪情节较轻，有**悔罪表现**，且已积极赔偿被害人
损失并取得谅解，符合《中华人民共和国刑法》第七十二条规定的**缓刑**
适用条件，建议对**被告人**王某**宣告缓刑**。
三、关于民事赔偿情况
**被告人**王某已向被害人赔偿医疗费、误工费等各项经济损失共计
**人民币壹拾万元整（¥100,000.00）**，并已取得被害人出具的谅解书。
综上所述，辩护人恳请合议庭综合考虑上述情节，依法对**被告人**
王某**从轻处罚**并**适用缓刑**。
辩护人：李XX
北京XX律师事务所
二〇二四年X月X日
Key revision notes:
-
"Criminal suspect" → "defendant"
[置信度：确定]The statutory title at the trial stage is "defendant." This is the most basic terminology standard in criminal proceedings, and incorrect use will seriously undermine the professionalism of the defense statement. -
"Voluntary surrender" → "confession"
[置信度：高]The original text describes "voluntarily confessed after being captured," and "being captured" indicates that it was not an automatic surrender, so it does not meet the "automatic surrender" requirement for voluntary surrender. If the defender has evidence proving that Wang had the intention to surrender and carried out an act of surrender before being captured, it may still constitute voluntary surrender, but factual support must be added. This revision is made based on the literal meaning of the original text. -
"Suspended execution" → "probation"
[置信度：确定]In criminal law, "suspended execution" specifically refers to "death sentence with a two-year suspension of execution" (death sentence with reprieve), which is a completely different system from "probation" (suspension of execution of a sentence). Confusing them here may lead to serious misunderstanding. -
Handling of "mental distress compensation"
[置信度：高]The expression "mental distress compensation" was deleted from the revised text because, according to Article 175, Paragraph 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, claims for compensation for mental distress are generally not supported in criminal incidental civil actions. If the victim truly needs to claim compensation for mental distress, a separate civil lawsuit should be filed.
Appendix: Quick Reference Card
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ 法律术语规范表达 · 快速检查口诀 ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ ║
║ 一查法条：术语是否有法定表述？ ║
║ 二查部门：术语是否属于正确的法律部门？ ║
║ 三查语境：术语含义是否与上下文吻合？ ║
║ 四查一致：同一概念全文是否统一用词？ ║
║ 五查时效：术语是否与现行法律一致？ ║
║ 六查文体：表达是否符合法律文书规范？ ║
║ 七查精度：是否存在模糊、笼统、歧义？ ║
║ ║
║ 致命红线（绝不可犯）： ║
║ × 犯罪嫌疑人/被告人混用 ║
║ × 定金/订金混淆 ║
║ × 缓刑/死缓混淆 ║
║ × 自首/坦白混淆 ║
║ × 法人代表（应为法定代表人） ║
║ × 罚金/罚款跨部门混用 ║
║ × 赔偿/补偿混淆 ║
║ × 诉讼时效/除斥期间混淆 ║
║ ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════╝