There are inherent complications involved in discerning how the English, French and Latin languages were used to facilitate legal process in late medieval England. These problems relate, for the most part, to the vernacular languages – English and French – for reasons that will become clear in due course. Latin is more straightforward. This is because it was employed principally as a language of the formal written record and its impact is plain to see in the reams of legal records held in The National Archives and in print. Latin was used to compile the main records of the royal courts – the plea rolls – from their very first appearance in the mid-1190s. It was also used in the writs which initiated legal proceedings (‘original’ writs) and in the writs subsequently issued to control these proceedings (‘judicial’ writs). It predominated in other branches of central government, particularly within the main administrative offices of the royal bureaucracy: the exchequer and the chancery. The status Latin enjoyed as the foremost language of the legal written record remained undiminished throughout the Middle Ages and it was not until 1731 that it was finally replaced by English. It occupied this position because it was considered a prestige language and a universal language of learning and culture. It was also understood to be the most effective language to convey meaning with precision and exactitude, and to preserve this meaning for posterity. Some of the earliest law manuals, written by Glanvill, Bracton and Hengham, were written in Latin for these reasons. French, and to a much lesser extent English, could also be used for the written record, but it was their employment as spoken languages which has, above all, created complications for historians. A key point to note is that the language chosen to record what was said in court did not always indicate the language that had actually been verbalised. This is what makes measuring the respective shares of English and French in the oral/aural legal culture of late medieval England so problematic. In what follows, I explore how historians have approached this particular conundrum. I also consider more generally how languages were used and how a trilingual legal culture determined the way contemporaries both experienced and accessed late medieval law.