I have seen lawyers who spend hours upon hours trying to find favourable precedent even though any reasonable person would give up after two hours of searching. Are these lawyers just allergic to arguing a matter without having any precedent to rely upon? And no, I am not talking about disputes where the statute/rules/regulations were against these lawyers.

Two hours of research is nothing. If anything, law is game of patience. Why do you think that, even today, when orders are passed for filing of affidavits, or of like nature, time of atleast 2 weeks is given? Its because in the earlier days, back when computers were not there and typewriters were there, it used to take time to draft and file the same, after having a conference with the client. Today, yes, the same can be done in hours, can be filed next day as well. But why is that not done? Because there are many cases that both the sides’ lawyers would have, and even though they would not require as much time, they still take it. Research, similarly, can be done in hours. Not 2 hours, that’s very less for an average research proposition (something not too direct, and something not too difficult either). Earlier, one would take weeks to find judgements on a particular point after going through the physical copies of SCC, AIR, and different journals and books. That is why you have the AIR manual and all. Today, yes, you can just log into scc online and do your research, but, sir, someone would give up after 2 hours of research? That’s beyond disappointing. Such people don’t have the mettle or the ability to do law. Even today, good research would easily takea minimum of 4-6 hours. That too on scc online and on the internet, and not using any physical books or commentaries. Now, to answer your core question of why overreliance on precedence? Well, you are both right and wrong. We all know that laws are to be construed first as they appear in the statute, and then if there is any case law on it (subject to the case law being of seminal importance to the statute). In earlier days, before computers became prevalent, that was the practice. Statutes were debated, argued, and construed in courts. Case laws were secondary unless of seminal importance. Today that practice is gone mostly. On the other side, even in earlier days, case laws were used for their precedentiary valeue, in addition to that of the arguments on interpretation of statute. Today, because the quality of the bar and the bench has gone down, and because the SC gives so many judgements, people want to keep relying upon case laws. Thats the case with judges too.

Glad to know that there are some like-minded people out there. However, I think you are being a bit too harsh when you say that people who give up after 2 hours are essentially quitters. Any person who is competent at research using boolean operators, has access to good commentaries, can switch between case law databases as the need arises, and can make savvy use of the internet to find research on the point already done by others can usually tell you very quickly, and with great accuracy, whether precedent exists on a given point. Research can take 4-6 hours only if you are aiming for comprehensive coverage of the cases on a point. Of course, this will not be needed unless you are paranoid or if the bench before whom you are arguing is overawed by long lists of cases. Usually one or two solid cases on the point should be all that is needed.

Yes, of course, arriving at the conclusion that precedent does not exist on a point (after searching for it for a considerable point of time) is tantamount to not doing one's work properly. Maybe you need to understand that precedent does not necessarily exist on every single proposition which can be thought of.

OP is not making the argument that precedent should not be relied upon. They are instead arguing that people rely too much on precedent due to which they spend an undue amount of time searching for precedent which most likely does not exist (especially if it is not found within a few hours). OP is essentially saying that you will sometimes have to argue a case without favourable precedent at hand and that lawyers should make their peace with this.