Certainly there's a give-and-take between lawyers giving advice and clients taking it, but by the "big X" their lawyers essentially do what they are told - lest the big client move elsewhere.
All to say: Lawyers doing a bad thing are often a symptom of an internal disease or conflict.
Which is to summarize a whole host of conflicting emotions: I'm slightly defensive about the profession, wholly sympathetic to the outcomes of wielding lawyers to achieve evil ends, and biased by personal experience – but nevertheless appreciative of comments, like this, that highlight the responsibility that lawyers bear to not only advise and act but to represent the reputations of institutions.
So I should have said I'm less than enthused with their legal strategy, rather than placing blame on a specific group of people.
GC definitely has an obligation to provide guidance on legal strategy before following the board's demands, and maybe they did so. Impossible to say where things broke down in this case.
Well, people defending themselves about doing bad things by stating that they are just doing what they are told are rightfully criticized. Even more so when they are in a high end profession.
http://www.nissan.com/Lawsuit/The_Story.php
Cybersquatting is obnoxious, but once they found out it was the guy's actual name, and that he was using it to run his own business, they should have just accepted he had a right to the site and worked to buy it from him or moved on.