A great lawyer must be agnostic. His job is to find a settlement in favor of his clients. He must manipulate the context to create a situation where his client wins by a landslide, using whatever means possible.
There is no such thing as "exploiting the legal system". There is only winning for your clients. Otherwise you're making excuses why you can't win for your clients.
Logical conclusion: A great lawyer is willing to blackmail or assassinate any unfavorable judges or jurors who can't be eliminated through legal means.
Surely you don't believe that actually falls under any reasonable definition of good?
Four downvotes, zero comments. I don't mind the downvotes at all, but I would expect better from HN users than to downvote without offering any contribution themselves. Is my logic invalid? Do you not like my example? Are you simply opposed to three-character usernames? Simply downvoting does nothing to correct any deficiencies you might see in a comment.
You forgot to factor long-term risk. If I got caught assassinating Judges/Jurors -- the impact for the company would be worse than losing whatever court case was being decided.
Hence winning is important - but you need to play by the rules to make it in the long run.
There is no such thing as "exploiting the legal system". There is only winning for your clients. Otherwise you're making excuses why you can't win for your clients.