There is an unwritten rule of all good writing and particularly legal writing: never use words, such as dithyramb, that will undoubtedly compel your target audience (the judge) to drop what he/she is reading in order to get a dictionary. In other words, don’t use obscure words when well known vocabulary will do. My English composition professor used the following sentence to illustrate: “He churlishly defenestrated the curmudgeon”. Instead, you could say, “irritated, he threw the old geezer out the window”.
I think the defense team in this case is deliberately using these obscure words to demonstrate their English language proficiency and poke fun at the prosecution to undermine the credibility of the entire legal process ... because this defendant is a Russian company, after all!
“There is an unwritten rule of all good writing and particularly legal writing: never use words, such as dithyramb, that will undoubtedly compel your target audience (the judge) to drop what he/she is reading in order to get a dictionary.”
I admit I was underwhelmed by the writing. I would be more persuaded by:
1. The rule is A
2. They say the rule is B, but it is not, because C.
3. Not only are they breaking Rule A, but what they are up to is wrong because it prevents us from reviewing evidence and making a defense.
4. Therefore we request an order telling them to do A.