Part of the reason for legal boilerplate, however, is that in case of litigation specifics do matter. A "known good" phrasing, therefore, will always be preferred by a lawyer giving you good advice, rather than an original and untested one. In some juristictions (such as Germany), the courts even _require a specific phrasing_ (even if it is bad/confusing for the lay person) in order for something to be legally effective.

This is not laziness on the lawyers' part, it is them doing what is correct, given the priorities they have been given.