I suspect legal jargon exists for the same reason programming languages exist: it is functionally impossible to be sufficiently precise in idiomatic vernacular.

I suspect legal jargon exists for the same reason programming languages exist: it is functionally impossible to be sufficiently precise in idiomatic vernacular. Too many things require precise and clear shared definitions. What is real property? What is a security? What is intent? What is a class? What is an object? What is memory? How do you even begin to function when you can't define these precisely? With this in mind, a person could make a reasonable case that legal language is already a DSL implemented in a natural language.