I use the term "FL" as an umbrella term for anytime language is involved with the law, synonymous with what some people call "legal linguistics" and "language and law". However, I recognize the differences between analyzing language evidence and playing an active role in an investigation/trial vs examining courtroom discourse and police interviews vs researching the language of a specific law, and so on. But quite often these areas overlap (i.e., the meaning of a law can become the subject of a lawsuit and the discourse of a police interview can be subject of a criminal trial, etc.), so I like a cover-all term that is still narrow enough to group these things together. FL is concerned with applying principles and methodologies of linguistics and linguistic analyses (i.e., phonetics, phonology, lexis, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics (language change and variation, identity, interaction, etc.), discourse analysis, register/genre variation, corpus linguistics, etc.) to forensic/legal data. Thus, forensic linguists are first and foremost, linguists.