Courts are easily tricked, the hacks needed are just different from what most programmers assume them to be. The whole job of lawyers is hacking the court to get a more favorable outcome. If this wasn't true it wouldn't matter which lawyer you have since the court would always interpret law in exactly the same way.

> If this wasn't true it wouldn't matter which lawyer you have since the court would always interpret law in exactly the same way

Have you ever litigated?

Litigation isn’t about “hacking” the court. If that’s how a lawyer is selling themselves, you’re being taken for a ride.

Cases are about resolving novel ambiguities in the law. The vast majority of disputes never make it to court. The two sides lawyer up and one of them is advised that based on the facts the precedent is in the opponent’s favor. As such, settlement is advisable. In a minority of cases, precedent is mixed or not applicable—the facts and circumstances are truly novel with respect to the law. Given the law is finite and reality is infinite, this happens more often than you’d think.

Lawyers thus argue how the law should be extended. Remember, case law is law in common law countries. Judges opinions aren’t interpretations per se, but acts of rule making.

Courts are made up of humans. Good lawyers put time into jury and judge/jurisdiction selection. Good firms hire former court staffers that know the judges presiding over the case. It's not meant to be easy to game the courts because it's a privilege.