The problem with your question is that "love of wisdom" does not truly characterize most contemporary philosophers: for the vast majority of them, philosophy is how they make their living, irrespective of what drew them to the field in the first place (which could have very well been "love of wisdom"). Earning money from philosophy does not automatically condemn it to the "dark side". Nevertheless, it certainly serves as a foothold for corruption that is, not present in the "love of wisdom" formula. This is so, by definition, since, IIRC, this formulation was originally coined (as φιλοσοφία) to draw a distinction from the "sophists", who earned money from their wisdom (as teachers, coaches of rhetoric, advocates in court, etc.).
But ignoring this somewhat technical point, your question reminded me of a New Yorker cartoon showing three guys in business suits standing around a desk, and one is asking the other two
Do you think now that we're doing fewer illegal things we can scale back the legal department?
(The above quote is verbatim, so searching for a sufficiently long substring of it, enclosed in double quotes, turns up the accompanying image, as of the time of this writing.)
This cartoon, it seems to me, packs a lot more truth than the average cartoon, or even the average New Yorker cartoon. In any case, it comes to mind whenever I hear of a "staff ethicist", or when some venture proclaims that their proposed budget includes the salary for an "ethics team", or a business schools trumpets the fact that its students are required to take a class in ethics, etc. I have never seen one such arrangement that seemed anything more than a fig leaf for the sake of PR. To the extent that the real function of such ethicists is not to ensure their employers, or future graduates, behave ethically, but rather, to provide PR cover, in one way or another, for ethically questionable conduct, I would say this represents a good candidate for Dark-Side philosophy.
(Of course, it is a standard Philosophy 101 exercise to defend the possible merits of such arrangements, but I find such arguments too implausible to be convincing. For example, one can imagine, at least in principle, that a sufficiently determined and quixotic staff ethicist may succeed in getting his/her employer to choose a more ethical course of action, but this is plausible only in those cases in which such a choice has absolutely no negative impact on the bottom line. I happen to think that situations like these are too rare in practice — if they happen at all — to balance the "darkness" of such ethics-for-hire situations.)
An even better example would be the use of ethicists to devise moral justifications for unsavory activities such as torture, bombing of civilian areas, political assassinations, etc. I can't give concrete examples of this, but I would be surprised if it never happened. (Certainly, something like this has happened in recent US history if we replace "moral" with "legal". Since very few US citizens seem to perceive any difference between "legal" and "moral" (or "ethical"), and therefore, one may argue that, in such cases the lawyers involved are playing the role of ethicists, this situation comes very close to the one I mentioned before. Admittedly, though, this more properly falls within the category of the Dark Side of the Legal Profession, which not only deviates from the focus of your question, but for which finding examples is like shooting fish in a barrel.)