It's almost always about money. On the defensive side, there are enough ways to stall that you can almost always outspend someone to win. On the offensive side, you can spend more time investigating and almost assuredly turn something indictable up. Have you really never heard of this?
As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth.
If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust.
At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)
It should be obvious that time/money spent and outcome correlate by looking at the reverse. Spending no time would assuredly prepare an inadequate case. What is unusual is the almost unbounded positive direction correlation.
You need to divorce "following the law" and "following the law that was intended or that may result in the most freedom for the most people." Many high level cases are the former, not the latter.
I have a friend who went to prison for a crime someone else committed, almost solely because the defense did not have the financial resources to fight the charges effectively.