Interestingly, I think that's the trick. Myself and fellow geeks approach many things as computer code - assumption that it's fully logical, consistent, repeat

Interestingly, I think that's the trick. Myself and fellow geeks approach many things as computer code - assumption that it's fully logical, consistent, repeatable, and reading of code will fundamentally tell you exactly and a priori what happens when it executes. Agreeing that they'll always take caution and safety, in my limited world at least, I've repeatedly been surprised when accountants and lawyers take a practical approach of "This is how the world works / This is what'll actually happen / This is what and how you should care about" (which is sometimes more and sometimes less strict than the letter), in addition and sometimes as priority over strict textual interpretation of something. Which is to say, our computer geeky interpretation of what a lawyer might say / react is sometimes based more on our assumption of how world and law work, than realities of legal profession :)