> problem with the law: it generates a lot of boilerplate text

I think the problem fundamentally is that matters of law require thorough, precise language, and unambiguous context. If you remove "the boilerplate" then you introduce a vast gray area left to interpretation.

Usually attempts (by humans or computers) to "summarize" or frame things in "plain language" will apply a bias since it intentionally omits all the myriad context and legal/societal "gray areas" that will inform one perspective or another.

Legalese exists the way it is because it is an attempt to remove doubt. And even then, doubt still creeps in.

This is only the case when you care more about the letter of the law than the spirit of the law, which is, I suppose, most of the world. It doesn't have to be this way, it's a choice that society has made.

When I bought my house, in an alternate universe the paperwork could have been one sheet of paper that said "[My name] purchases home at [address] from [Seller's name] for [price]." and we'd all rely on our shared understanding of what it means to buy something and shared cultural expectations around home ownership and commerce. But our society did not make that choice, we don't live in that universe, so I had to sign a 300 page stack of papers 30 times.