Ask yourself how you were able to determine the author was in agreement with the WT and you'll have to answer, "I read it for myself in the link provided by Terry."
Actually, Terry, I didn't read the paper in the link you provided. I read that paper some time ago and the author does take the position that the legal strategy dealing with First Amendment rights was a planned endeavor by the Watchtower Society's legal team.
I did not get the impression that the author was "in agreement with the WT." I got the impression that the paper was an attempt to re-contextualize pre-existing opinions within the legal community about these legal cases being purely 'accidental'.
The quote that you presented was simply the author presenting differing/existing opinions to her thesis. It was a quote of quotes.
I am sorry if I didn't 'get' the title of your thread - when I read the thread title, it appeared like the thread is about legal scholars who say that the WTS legal strategies were accidental. Henderson's paper you quote from does not support this position.