This Brief underlines most forcefully that this century’s fascination by signs, signals, shortcuts, and related components of the globally spread e-language is one of its eye-catching features. That was not imaginable at the end of the twentieth century, and Roberta Kevelson (1931–1998) who introduced the term ‘legal semiotics’ since her 1977 publication Inlaws/Outlaws: A Semiotics of Systematic Interaction could not foresee that change. But such observation is in itself already a motivation for further research in Kevelson’s work. The impact of the turn in law and legal theory she propagated remained in the dark since her death in 1998 during decades. Today, lawyers illustrate the reverse: Law does not have any effect if it is without the fascination for signs and their function of signifying. We need to raise questions again, such as: Who was at the origins and first effects of the concept ‘legal semiotics’ within legal discourse? Today that still seems a non-issue. Yet it appears necessary to recover that occurrence, because it is incorporated in a scholar, which was on the one hand influenced by the very first feminist movements at the East coast of the USA and on the other hand by the philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce and the semiotics of Thomas Sebeok. The two played until her days a minor role in legal theory and hermeneutics as well as the unfolding of understanding legal speech acts. Although the person in question, Roberta Kevelson, did not officially belong to the editors of the Journal, she was honored with a full issue of the International Journal for the Semiotics of Law less than a year after she passed away in 1998—the Journal she had so feverishly supported during the last decade of her career at Penn State University.