Science and Law are the twin pillars of modern civilization - from a theoretical point of view. The approaches are fundamentally different - for example, a court will generally not throw up its hands in despair and say "we can't come to a conclusion on this as we don't have the experimental data yet, maybe in a few decades" - hence the practice of indefinite detention without trial, or indefinite suspension of a civil case - is not legally sound (Gitmo ahem). On the other hand, science has little to say about moral decisions, it simply reports on factual matters. For example, cannibalism is abhored by the legal system but as long as you don't consume the brains & nervous tissue (prion diseases etc.), and cook it thoroughly, flesh is basically flesh, say the scientists. Hence it can be rather unwise to let scientists make moral decisions (John von Neumann wanting to surprise-nuke the Soviet Union and slaughter a hundred million people is a notable example, as is Mengele's interest in acquiring human subjects for medical experimentation), and equally unwise to let lawyers make decisions about scientific issues such as the role of fossil fuels in global warming, or the safety and efficacy of vaccines (politicians who were shady lawyers in their past lives controlling the budgets of federal science-funding agencies comes to mind as a negative example).
The practice of science and law is, in contrast to the theoretical ideal, woefully corrupt, biased and untrustworthy in our modern world. Finding a lawyer or scientist capable of explaining complex topics in their domain without trying to manipulate things for their own personal benefit is a fairly difficult process, much like sifting dirt to find gems. The fact is, science and law requires intelligent individuals, but intelligence without any self-consistent moral code easily leads to the clever self-serving manipulator and con artist types.
Any business or government entity that needs to hire scientists and lawyers to make progress has their work cut out for them, that's for sure - assuming they want accurate reports, and aren't just trying to get 'reputable experts' on board who will tell the public that toxic waste is good for your health, or to find shady lawyers who will help hide the profits in offshore tax havens.