I'd be much more convinced by your argument if you could show that:
a) since legal terms are much older than comp-related terms, that comp-related terms will not seem as disjointed from their common usage 100, 200, 300 years from now and
b) that the legal terms were intentional chosen to ensure that the lay-public could not easily enter the legal realm (so something like how the King James Bible was intentionally written in an antiquated form of English to lend an aura of legitimacy and superiority (along with the intention to avoid words or idioms that may rapidly change in meaning)).
Otherwise, the confusing jargon of the legal realm is just an accidental consequence of the English language changing while legal terms continued to have a stable meaning. It seems confusing to us now, the terms would've been more intuitive to those who initially adopted them. Other areas of knowledge run in to this problem and the reason behind the confusion, in my estimate, tends to be that the public's usage of words shifts based on usage which may not reflect what the word should strictly mean (e.g. "metaphysics" to philosophers vs. "metaphysics" to the lay-public, "irony" to pedants vs. "irony" to the lay-public). One possibly fruitful test-case for your claim would be the word choice of various cultures that recently adopted a Western-style legal system, where previously little formalized legal system existed. If their word choice is intentionally arcane, then it does seem likely that there is a general trend toward obfuscating the law, whereas if they pick words that make sense to the lay-public, then the appearance of malice in the law's word choice may be an accidental consequence of language's evolution.