Sounds like a good guess. Do you think a personality clash with the new GB members and the older legal team could also come into play as a to giving bad advice that appears to be good, playing on the vanity and delusions of the Governing Body"
My own opinion would be that the legal team would not intentionally give bad advice for two reasons:
1) It's not in lawyers' nature to give their own clients bad advice. Usually if there was some kind of schism they would terminate the representation before doing that, although that is difficult as an in-house Watchtower lawyer. It also could be grounds for losing one's law license, although it might be hard to prove in a lot of cases. If it was done in connection with a public matter like a case it could also look bad if that lawyer were to be looking for another job.
2) Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? These lawyers are WTS heavies and probably enjoy the prestige associated with that. And to be honest if all they have done their entire legal career is WTS work, such as in the case of the ones the WTS put through law school, despite the law degree they are probably going to have difficulty finding work elsewhere if they leave the organization, and it's doubtful many have the capital to start up their own practice. There is a limited market for lawyers who can defend shunning and church pedophile lawsuits. Real estate contracts and knowlege of NYC law therein is useful, but that is mostly handled by big firms that want lawyers with a pedigree.
Now as to whether they would uninentionally give bad advice, as I said earlier I doubt it -- but maybe that's a question for a psychologist to answer.