Legal English and Non-Speakers of Standard English

I don't understand the idea behind this draft. Lawyers are the translators between clients and the specialized language and procedures of the legal system. Due process requires the availability of simultaneous translators for criminal defendants who don't speak English, and the US state and federal governments maintain a large service of independent court translators, unique in the world, which you don't mention. US state and federal governments make documents intended to advise or be used by citizens to communicate available in many languages; voting-related materials, for example, are made available in almost 20 languages in NYC. What proportion of the society, regardless of language, could successfully read and comprehend a building code, or the IRC, or a credit card agreement, or the terms of service of a typical social media platform? Linguistic diversity is hardly a new phenomenon in the US, and English is not now, nor has it ever been, the only language used in judicial proceedings here, unlike in most countries where there is an official language. I don't understand why a merely speculative claim that one particular witness in one particular trial "may have" been misunderstood by the jury stands for some larger problem, for which no further evidence whatever is offered. Have we, for example, more reason to believe that jury misunderstanding of local or regional patois is a more frequent problem that misunderstanding of technical language used by witnesses in accident cases, patent cases, medical malpractice cases, air crash litigation, etc? What would a "comprehensive solution" to the facts of cultural and cognitive diversity in a democracy of 340 million people be based on?

So probably the best route to improvement is to put the next draft in contact with the literature. I'm happy to discuss further particular areas of reading in whatever way is convenient to you; I feel handicapped in making suggestions without more direct conversation.