The use of difficult technical terms in order to confuse and/or to self-elevate by presenting yourself as particularly well-educated.
Here an example of some elaborate legal gobbledygook:
Prima vista, a liability claim based on culpa in contrahendo can be assumed in casu.
What was meant to be said here is that something apparently went wrong when a contract was signed. And while this doesn’t necessarily have to be expressed just that colloquially, there is also no reason to deliberately use such a pompous and incomprehensible language as in the example above.
It is irrelevant if the motivation for the excessive use of Latin and passive sentence constructions was to impress the court, or one’s own client, or whether it was to distract from weaknesses in the actual argument.
The use of jargon is not always unwarranted: Professional groups, sportspeople, subcultures or social milieus often have specific expressions that make communication within these groups easier. For example, no-one would ask a sailor to say “turn round, but with the wind from behind” instead of the much shorter term “gybe” (for Americans: jibe).
Such technical jargon also has an important social purpose, as it can be used to indicate one’s belonging to a group – for example, that of sailors – or to distinguish between in- and outsiders of a group. In other words, they can be useful both for more efficient communication and for group identification.
However, the same can become an unfair discussion tactic when you try to gain an advantage by presenting yourself as particularly “educated” and as a supposed “expert” towards others (appeal to authority, false authority and self-adulation).