My boss doesn't like the past perfect tense

Dear A.U.E. Friends,
I'd like to ask your advice on a rather delicate point. I am a writer for a specialized legal news publication. Much of what I write are analyses of court opinions. In such articles, we refer to the statements of the court in the past tense. My deeply ingrained instinct is, therefore, to refer to the actions of the parties that triggered the case in the past perfect tense. My boss, however, has requested that I use the simple past tense throughout:
[nq:1]You still seem wedded to the past perfect tense for verbs describing the background of legal actions, the holdings of ... to the reader which happened first. Once we get into the various levels of past tense, it gets too complicated.[/nq]
Of course, I fully recognize that it is her option to make such policy decisions regarding style and such and should she refuse to budge from her position, I will do my best to conform. However, unlike all kinds of other style issues, this particular one is difficult for me to conform to because all my sense as a writer and all my senses regarding grammar and logic scream out for the past perfect tense.

I wonder whether any of you can point to any resources that I can use to set out a logical argument in favor of the past perfect tense.

Thanks.