Lol.
I agree. 3.5 had clearer rules than 5e. I think the flexibility provided by 5e is a worthwhile tradeoff for the loss of clarity.
That all depends what you mean by "rules lawyering."
In 3.5, my image of the rules lawyer was the guy who opened the book whenever the DM did something he didn't like. Lawyers love to cite authority, afterall.
In 5e, the smaller ruleset disempowers this sort of rules lawyer. There is simply less to cite. I can argue what I think a vague rule means, but the DM is left with more flexibility to resolve things. So long as you have a good DM, that's not a problem.
In some ways, 5e is more like your idea of how the law really should work: you think we all have some idea of what murder means, and should simply get on with it. This is not an argument for precise codification!!!