The body of knowledge in law is vast and some areas can be intellectually stimulating as well (depending on one's interests). "Overworded nonsense" that you usually see (in contracts or legislation, I suppose) happens when less than stellar lawyers are made to write stuff upon a deadline, and is the equivalent of "spaghetti code". Usually, it's fine since nobody (I think) gives you a bonus for succinct writing when drafting a contract. But you might get in trouble for missing some "edge cases". There's also a lot of cargo culting (magic Latin incantations) and building on questionable templates (technical debt). Sometimes people intentionally write in weird illegible ways to impress people (think Perl one liners).

Anyway, when most programmers see an unfamiliar codebase for the first time, they'd probably think most of the code are "overworded nonsense" until they fully understand the "business requirements" and the special cases implemented. (This is where the adage against complete rewrites comes from.) Unless you're really an expert in the area of law, you're probably not qualified to say that some legal texts are overworded nonsense.

But yeah, there's more parallels in law and software engineering than one might think. I'm a software engineer by trade, not a lawyer, but I do have a degree in law, and I often read up on cases or occasionally do my own legal research mostly for fun and personal interest. I would contend your "extremely dull" claim. TBH I might read more legal texts than Other People's Code, the latter which I generally hate doing, and is usually more boring for me (and occasionally infuriating when I know the coders spewing writing crap instead of putting effort in making the stuff succinct and clean).

That said, believe whatever you want.