Lack of Legal Expertise cannot hide the freedom and the duty to communicate, unless ofcourse "lacking Legal Expertise" is a cover for linguistics and semantics inabilities.
One of the greatest quality of human existence is their ability to communicate - their thoughts and their desires. The immense conquest of humans over the other species of life came with the help of their brain skills. Communication in the USP of humans. Written communication served the purpose of preserving the knowledge found and discovered by one generation for transfering to the next generation. Each generation contributed to the enhancement of the common knowlwdge bank, instead of re-discovering what the old ones had already discovered.
Written communications made the original terms and conditions of the contract permanent- preserved for a life time, and served as evidence for everyone to see.
That what everyone in the society could come and see for himself, witness by his own senses came to be known as EVIDENCE. When a specialised logical process- the consideration of the enormous possibilties of it existence- begins to be applied to an evidence to make sense of it, thereof to produce a story, a theory, the evidence becomes a LEGAL EVIDENCE.
All this specialised processing of the written form of communication couldn't have deprived the writing ability of purpose of its origin-- to express the human thoughts and desires. Specialisation knows the foundational truth of its own works, the limitation of its existence. Specialisation cannot overthrow the general view; rather, specialisation finds the seeds of its birth from general view. Even the law recognises the truth and therefore seeks to depend on the intentions of the law instead of mere words. Words have their limitations and cannot comprehensively express all that the vast earth , all the lives on it, and cover all the three phases of times-- everyone recognises this truth.
Therefore the fear of the specialised "legal" processing is a bogey of the unawakened humans. Were it really so real then perhaps all the businesses would have been headed by the lawyers instead of the specialists of pertinent fields. Invoking a "legal expert" or even a lawyer for simple human communications often times hides in it the linguistics and semantics inabilities of the people. While it stands true that the specialised processing of the written words aften invites intense, hair-splitting scrutinising by the lawyers, but often THE ANTI-DOTE TO IMMENSE SPECIALISATION IS THE GENERALISED VIEW ITSELF.
The soul of communication is the intentions and desires, words are the mere carriers of it.