Reinsurance
Product Family
Claims
Risk Consulting
Media Center
Get In Touch

Must you refrain from using “shall” in your contracts? Some legal scholars and government agencies are moving in that direction.

Words often change meaning over time. Take, for example, the word “shall.” Law schools long taught that in a legal context, the word “shall” is synonymous with “must” and that they’re both words of obligation meaning “mandatory.” However, “shall” has been losing favor in some legal circles, an interesting development for design professionals and others who work with contracts.

“Shall” is still commonly used in laws, codes and regulations. Most of the contracts that architects and engineers encounter—including the standard form agreements published by the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC), and ConsensusDOCS—use “shall” to express a requirement or obligation. To the engineer and client that execute the EJCDC E-500, the clause, “The Engineer shall provide, or cause to be provided, the services set forth herein and in Exhibit A,” makes the engineer’s obligation clear.

But some legal scholars consider “shall” outdated and ambiguous. They say the word is frequently used incorrectly (most often by lawyers) and, depending on how it’s used, can have a variety of meanings.

No less than the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in a majority opinion, “though ‘shall’ generally means ‘must,’ legal writers sometimes use, or misuse, ‘shall’ to mean ‘should,’ ‘will’ or even ‘may.’”1

According to the University of Texas School of Law’s Walter Schiess, “When ‘shall’ is used to describe a status, to describe future actions, or to seemingly impose an obligation on an inanimate object, it’s being used incorrectly.”2

For example, it’s clear that “the Consultant shall provide” imposes an obligation. But how about “the parties shall request arbitration”? That has been interpreted by courts to mean “should,” rather than “must.” In the clause, “the Consultant shall be notified within 30 days,” “shall” could be interpreted to mean “is entitled to,” which may or may not mean there’s an obligation.

If you think that’s hairsplitting, consider this: the use of the word “shall” is increasingly the subject of lawsuits. Nearly every jurisdiction has held that the word “shall” is ambiguous. In the legal dictionary “Words and Phrases,” more than 70 pages summarize hundreds of cases interpreting “shall.” It may be one of the most misused words in the English language.

Moving away from “shall”
In the U.S., the federal government is moving to “must” as the preferred way to express a requirement or obligation. In 2003, the Federal Aviation Agency issued an advisory regarding the use of “will” or “must” in place of “shall.” The new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure uses “must,” not “shall” and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no longer uses “shall.” (See “Resources.”)

In Canada, at least three provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba) have amended their Interpretation Acts to forbid the use of “shall.”

But other government agencies and organizations disagree. In specifications and standards published by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), requirements that use “shall” remain mandatory. (“‘Must’ shall not be used to express mandatory provisions. Use the term ‘shall.’”) In DoD-speak, “will” declares intent or simple futurity, and “should” and “may” express non-mandatory provisions.

Consider this: the use of the word “shall” is increasingly the subject of lawsuits.

What shall we do?
While it’s important to be aware of legal trends, A/Es can feel comfortable using professional association standard agreements. Those documents (as well as sample clauses in AXA XL’s Contract eGuide for Design Professionals) use “shall” to mean “has a duty to.” AIA and EJCDC agreements have been tested by the courts over time, and you can confidently rely on the meaning and interpretation of the documents' contract terms.

When you review an agreement drafted by a client or other party, see that the word is used correctly and consistently. In other words, don’t randomly use “must” and “will” and “promises to” and “expressly agrees to.” Choose one word (or term) of obligation and stick to it.

“To correctly use ‘shall’,” writes Bryan A. Garner, editor-in-chief of Black’s Law Dictionary, “confine it to the meaning ‘has a duty to’ and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor.”3

For example, the AIA B101™-2017 clause, “The Architect shall provide professional services as set forth in this Agreement,” assigns a duty to the architect. If you’re unsure, substitute “shall” with “has a duty to,” and see if it still makes sense.

You could take a proactive approach, too, by defining the word “shall” in a definitions section of your contracts, stating that the word is considered a mandatory obligation and synonymous with the phrase “has a duty to.” 

Over time, the legal community may continue to move away from “shall.” Our advice: whichever word you choose, do so deliberately, and use it correctly and consistently.


Resources
The Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook
Garner, Bryan A., Black’s Law Dictionary, 10th Edition, Abridged and nearly two dozen other books on legal writing.
Plainlanguage.gov
Schiess, Wayne, Legal Writing Nerd: Be One, 2018, and several previous books on legal writing.

1 Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno
2 Legalwriting.net, “shall” vs. “will,” 2005
3 Bryan A. Garner, em>A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 940–941, (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995).

Subscribe
More Articles

Global Asset Protection Services, LLC, and its affiliates (“AXA XL Risk Consulting”) provides risk assessment reports and other loss prevention services, as requested. This document shall not be construed as indicating the existence or availability under any policy of coverage for any particular type of loss or damage. AXA XL Risk. We specifically disclaim any warranty or representation that compliance with any advice or recommendation in any publication will make a facility or operation safe or healthful, or put it in compliance with any standard, code, law, rule or regulation. Save where expressly agreed in writing, AXA XL Risk Consulting and its related and affiliated companies disclaim all liability for loss or damage suffered by any party arising out of or in connection with this publication, including indirect or consequential loss or damage, howsoever arising. Any party who chooses to rely in any way on the contents of this document does so at their own risk.

US- and Canada-Issued Insurance Policies

In the US, the AXA XL insurance companies are: AXA Insurance Company, Catlin Insurance Company, Inc., Greenwich Insurance Company, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, XL Insurance America, Inc., XL Specialty Insurance Company and T.H.E. Insurance Company. In Canada, coverages are underwritten by XL Specialty Insurance Company - Canadian Branch and AXA Insurance Company - Canadian branch. Coverages may also be underwritten by Lloyd’s Syndicate #2003. Coverages underwritten by Lloyd’s Syndicate #2003 are placed on behalf of the member of Syndicate #2003 by Catlin Canada Inc. Lloyd’s ratings are independent of AXA XL.
US domiciled insurance policies can be written by the following AXA XL surplus lines insurers: XL Catlin Insurance Company UK Limited, Syndicates managed by Catlin Underwriting Agencies Limited and Indian Harbor Insurance Company. Enquires from US residents should be directed to a local insurance agent or broker permitted to write business in the relevant state.