Law, like science, was once just another name for a quest, one motivated by truth. And as science was born from asking questions that sought answers that were true rather than convenient, so was law of the same brood.
As scientists, we find ourselves questioned more harshly when what truths we prod are inconvenient. It becomes difficult to defend scientific truths without pedagogy - and more fundamentally, without the attention of the listener to evidence that is often boring. A similar conundrum arises with legal truths. If all our time is spent justifying ourselves, how can we do anything with what we believe?
It is thus inconvenient to maintain a quest for the truth. And cyclically, the problem with convenience, is that it keeps us from the truth.
I believe that this manifests in subtler ways that often hide in plain sight. We never question convenience - be it in our lives, or in our minds.
Perhaps we need to intentionally do things that are difficult, for a change. The truth may depend on it.