I transcribe tapes for attorneys. I am distressed by the following example, which is typical in the dictations I receive daily:

"Other than that test, there were no other tests given."

It seems to me that the second "other" is redundant. I believe it ought to be "Other than that test, there were no tests given," or "There were no tests given other than that test."

When I correct this, the attorneys often change it back. They respond well to documentation, so I seek a clear answer to give when explaining my corrections.

Thank you.
You are right, it is grammatically and semantically unnecessary; however, legal language is a law unto itself, which as it happens prefers redundancies as a way of ensuring that the point is clearly and unequivocally stated. They know best how they want to express themselves, I think.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
We're not really talking "legal language" here. I'm referring to ordinary letters and writings, not to pleadings or contracts. Many of the attorneys here simply are terrible writers. They are notorious for run-on sentences and completely allergic to semicolons. That being said, I am still looking for the exact reason why my example is "grammatically and semantically unnecessary," so that I can explain it properly. Thanks.
The reason is that there are two 'other's. 'Other than X, there is no Y'; 'there is no Y other than X'.