Definition
Informality is the want, or absence, of legally required or customary form in a proceeding, instrument, or act. A proceeding is informal when it fails to observe the prescribed formalities that law or practice requires — without necessarily being void on that account. The term is most commonly encountered in historical practice in two contexts: (1) challenges to the validity of legal instruments (deeds, pleadings, indictments) on the ground that they deviate from required form; and (2) procedural objections asserting that process was defective for failure to follow prescribed steps.
Informality does not equate to illegality or nullity. An informal act may still be legally operative, particularly where curative statutes or amendment rules allow defects of form to be corrected or disregarded when no substantial right is prejudiced.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The condition of being informal; an informal term or usage; a colloquialism.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The state of being informal; want of regular, prescribed, or customary form. An informal, unconventional, or unofficial act or proceeding.
In ordinary English, informality suggests casual social behavior or relaxed style. In legal usage, the term is narrower and more technical: it describes a specific deficiency in legal form — the absence of something prescribed by law or procedure — and carries consequences for validity, amendability, or enforceability that the common meaning does not suggest.
Common Confusion
Informality is sometimes treated as synonymous with invalidity or irregularity, but the terms are distinct. An irregularity is a departure from procedural rule that may or may not go to the form of the instrument itself. Informality refers specifically to the absence or defect of legal form — the shell of the proceeding — and is frequently remediable where irregularity may or may not be. Likewise, informality should not be confused with illegality: an act can be informal without being unlawful.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers will encounter informality most heavily in pre-twentieth-century practice materials, particularly in common law pleading cases and early statutory construction disputes. Several navigational points are critical:
First, the term is closely tied to the history of amendment practice. Amendment statutes — sometimes called "informality acts" in Pennsylvania and similar jurisdictions — gave courts power to correct defects of form without dismissal. The Rapalje & Lawrence entry and the Pennsylvania cases cited in Black's 2nd Edition (Franklin v. Mackey, 16 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 118; and the Watts citation) reflect this specific statutory background. Researchers reading those cases must distinguish between what was cured by the general amendment power and what required specific statutory authorization.
Second, in criminal practice, courts historically distinguished between informalities in an indictment and defects going to substance. An informality in charging language might be waivable or amendable; a substantive defect in stating the offense could be fatal. This distinction runs through the North Carolina and Arkansas cases cited in Black's 2nd Edition (State v. Gallimon, 24 N.C. 377; Hunt v. State, 37 Ark. 108) and is relevant when tracing the Sixth Amendment guarantee that a defendant be informed of the charges against them — a constitutional floor that informality doctrine cannot override.
Third, researchers should note that Anderson's Dictionary of Law simply cross-references FORMALITY, suggesting the terms were understood as functional inverses. Following that cross-reference in the corpus will surface the affirmative content that informality lacks by definition.
Fourth, modern practice has largely absorbed the concept into rules governing amendment of pleadings, harmless error doctrine, and notice requirements. The stand-alone term informality now appears mainly in older treatises, historical case law, and parliamentary or administrative procedure contexts. Researchers working in modern sources should search under amendment, defect of form, or harmless error to find the functional equivalents.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical sources converge tightly on a single core definition: want of legal form. Bouvier's phrasing — "want of customary or legal form" — is the most precise, capturing both the positive law requirement and the uncodified practice expectation. Black's 1st Edition and Rapalje & Lawrence track Bouvier closely. Black's 2nd Edition adds case citation support and notably situates informality within its entry structure immediately before INFORMATION, reflecting the alphabetical conventions of the period but creating a risk of reader confusion since the two terms are conceptually unrelated.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the downstream consequences of informality — whether a defect is waivable, amendable, or fatal — are left entirely to case law and statute. None of the source dictionaries theorize a taxonomy of curable versus incurable informalities. Researchers expecting doctrinal guidance from the dictionary entries alone will find them insufficient and must proceed to the case law cited in Black's 2nd Edition and the Pennsylvania amendment statute materials.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: Sixth Amendment — Right to Be Informed of Charges (criminal_185). Relevant for the constitutional boundary below which informality doctrine cannot operate: a defect of form in a charging instrument that leaves a defendant without adequate notice of the offense implicates Sixth Amendment concerns beyond the reach of curative informality rules.