So you are saying that legal teams are advising people to fill their applications with bull shit?
No. She's not saying that at all.
When you fill out a divorce petition for unreasonable behaviour, you have to give examples. These examples need to be chosen, so unless you literally only have like three (and frankly, DH and I could both come up with plenty more than that and we're very happily married) that means leaving some out. It's not more or less correct to use milder ones than worse ones, or vice versa. There is nothing in English divorce law to oblige a petitioner to choose the worst examples.
And so in order to try and keep things as civilised as possible, and to maximise the chances of the other spouse not contesting, the legal profession moved towards advising petitioners to try and keep things mild where possible (not always of course but general trend). I was literally told in the late noughties to avoid being combative. I remember being told to rewrite a petition by my supervisor, that Resolution principles required us to be as conciliatory as possible.
And these mild petitions were granted by the courts. To some extent it was the profession and the courts trying to make a minimal fault divorce option possible in the absence of the law making provision for no fault when the rules on separation aren't met. It was, in my view, a pretty good thing. Nobody benefits from unnecessary mud slinging.
It's important this is spelled out because so many people are assuming her lawyers are at fault here. They may have been of course, it's possible to write a bit more than they did whilst still not mudslinging, but the general approach they advised was what's been pretty standard in recent years. They may have got the execution of it a bit wrong.