I think this sounds interesting in a lot of ways, but I question your assumption that a team of professional lawyers will agree that you "don't have to read the legalese to understand what your contracts are saying". Presumably the lawyers had a reason for putting the language in the contract to begin with. You might be able to summarize a contract in this way, but in the general case I don't think you can just "translate" the contract into plain English without glossing over parts of it, and parts that lawyers probably think are important details. It's a bit like software or mathematics in that way, the formal language serves some purpose.

- However, maybe the parts that get glossed over are covering edge cases that often don't matter?