How does that work when we're talking about non-profit motives? The lawyers are paid by the companies benefitting from these conflicts, so how is it at all reassuring to hear that the people who benefit from the conflict signed off on it?
> We can go out on a limb and suppose the mission of the nonprofit is not their top priority, and yet they continue on unscathed.
That's the concern. They've just replaced people who "maybe" cared about the mission statement with people who you've correctly identified care more about profit growth than the nonprofit mission.