While it's legitimate for the client to depend on the lawyer's expertise, it's harder to
allege obliviousness about, or complete disagreement with, the choices the lawyer made.
A full six pages of Benchmark's lawsuit were dedicated to describing Kalanick's role in the Otto acquisition and Benchmark's
obliviousness to
alleged wrongdoing; I noted when the lawsuit was filed that it, more than any of Uber's scandals, had the potential to be Kalanick's doom, and apparently Benchmark agrees (although, of course, one should question why Gurley, then an Uber board member, apparently declined to do more digging on a $ 680 million acquisition).