An example of terrible legal drafting:

Here's a paragraph from the pivotal European Court of Justice opinion Case C-212/04 Adeneler [2004] ECR I-06057:

123. It follows that, from the date upon which a directive has entered into force, the courts of the Member States must refrain as far as possible from interpreting domestic law in a manner which might seriously compromise, after the period for transposition has expired, attainment of the objective pursued by that directive.

We've spent around 30 minutes debating what this means, with the result that we now realize it's even more open to multiple interpretations than we originally thought.

I submit that any sentence that takes that much analysis to understand is poor drafting.  A sentence that can handle that much analysis and still not communicate what the author was trying to say is terrible.

On the other (more cynical) hand, it's a nice statement for the Court to cite in future cases...it provides strong support for both sides of the argument.