Which of the following is not an advantage of engaging in judicial advocacy?

Engaging in judicial advocacy typically involves navigating a complex legal system, which often requires thorough understanding and effective strategy. The assertion that the process is relatively simple to follow overlooks the various legal intricacies, procedural rules, and potential barriers those involved in judicial advocacy must face, such as filing deadlines, court rules, and the need for legal expertise.

In contrast, other options highlight the strong benefits of judicial advocacy. It can create new precedents, which means that successful cases can establish new standards for how laws are interpreted and applied. This can lead to significant positive changes in society. Additionally, judicial advocacy serves to protect established rights, ensuring that existing legal protections remain in force. It also allows for the reinterpretation of laws, which can adapt legal frameworks to better serve contemporary societal needs and values. Therefore, the complexity of the judicial process stands out as a notable disadvantage, making the claim that it is relatively simple inaccurate.