Engineers having poor legal analysis seems to stem from a common assumption that lawyers are the programmers, the law is the code, and the judge is the interpre

Engineers having poor legal analysis seems to stem from a common assumption that lawyers are the programmers, the law is the code, and the judge is the interpreter/compiler who just sort of runs the arguments the lawyers provide and outputs an answer. This leads them to over-weight “rules lawyering” and creative interpretations. It can be fixed by instead viewing lawyers as junior devs making competing PRs and the judge as the senior dev reviewing and approving/denying them: if you find a clever loophole that inverts the law , the judge will say “that is not intended, denied”.