I think this is an important characterization of what law really is. Often we like to pretend that law and judges are neutral when the actuality is that neutrality is impossible. Everyone interpreting law has principles and ideologies that color their thinking. It is important that those biases are recognized and acknowledged.

This seems easier said than done. Learning to distill the question using the correct terms of art helps narrow the search within the vast body of law needed to be search. It feels especially high stakes, though, because if your phrasing is just a bit off you might miss the exact case or authority you're looking for.

It does seem like a good rule of thumb in most cases is to cast a wide net through secondary sources before zeroing in on specific cases. Another benefit to this system seems to be that there are built in checks to verify the authorities being cited remain relevant and won't get you embarrassed in front of a judge.

This feels as though writing requirements are heavily weighted towards academia. Lawyers writing for attorney audiences and publishing in a recognized third-party publisher are practicing a type of legal writing that may not have practical applications for many practicing lawyers. By allowing attorneys to use legal writing from their daily work might incentives them to improve their briefs before the court so that they might apply to CLE requirements.