Professional Article: Hiding in Plain Sight: Bias in Legal Contracts A Call to Reform Contract Language Using the Term “Master”

Whether it’s used in the context of a “Master Services Agreement” in business or a “Master Use License” in music contracts for “sound recordings,” these terms bear the remnants of a past marked by systemic racism and subjugation. Historically, the concept of the “master” in business relationships stems from (i) feudalistic societies of Europe (e.g., Master-Servant classism), and in the U.S. (e.g., Master-Slave racism). The etymology of the term originates from systems of dominion and implicitly reinforces outdated references to servitude and subjugation.

There have been calls for language reform in various sectors to address these implicit biases and promote inclusivity. One notable example comes from the European Union, where efforts have been made to replace the term “Master” with alternatives that do not carry racial or hierarchical connotations including Main Services Agreement, Primary Services Agreement and Framework Agreement, noting that Main Services Agreement may enable faster implementation and reform due to the same acronym “MSA.”

In line with the American Bar Association and various State Bar’s efforts to address bias in the legal profession, substituting “Master Services Agreement” with “Main Services Agreement” and “Master Use License” with simply “Sound Recording License” represents a meaningful step by lawyers and business professions towards mitigating implicit biases embedded in language.

By removing terms that evoke historical oppression and replacing them with neutral alternatives, businesses and the music industry can signal their commitment to fostering equitable and inclusive environments.

The use of language plays a crucial role in shaping societal norms and perceptions, consciously and subconsciously. Recognizing this enables us to take proactive steps towards creating a more just and inclusive society. Embracing alternative terminology is essential because of the power language has in perpetuating bias. By using more neutral and inclusive language, reforming biased language helps mitigate the propagation of stereotypes and discrimination. Language reform is not merely a matter of semantics but a reflection of our commitment to dismantling systemic inequalities.

Implicit bias, deeply ingrained in societal structures, often manifests itself in seemingly innocuous language choices. The term “Master,” historically associated with oppressive systems like feudalism and slavery, carries connotations of dominance and subjugation. While its modern usage may not directly mirror these oppressive structures, its presence in contracts can reinforce implicit biases and unequal power dynamics.

I invite lawyers, business professionals, and all others to reevaluate and reform biased terminology to foster inclusivity and dismantle discriminatory structures. I invite Bar Associations to engage in further efforts to eliminate explicit bias from the legal profession and cultivate awareness of implicit bias.