Since it’s my hypothetical, here’s more detail on how it came to be, where “L” is the lawyers and “B” is the Board:
L: Best to say nothing at all.
B: Let us push back on that. We may not be legally required to tell the members anything, but believe some level of transparency is vital for extra-legal reasons. How can we minimize - if not wholly eliminate - the legal risk of saying something?
L: Sure, although it’s against my best legal advice. Provided that’s understood, let’s proceed. What do you have in mind?
B: Understood. Could we, for example, explain exactly what the nature of the legal risk of saying more might be?
L: Oh no. This is a very unlikely scenario, and you could be held legally liable for disclosing exactly how it might come to be. It’s all but daring someone to try to provoke it. It’s akin to leaving a loaded gun on a table and walking away.
B: OK. How about a pure hypothetical? Extreme in several respects?
L: That could work. And avoid any absolutes. Always leave an out. For example, instead of saying “we would”, say “we almost certainly would”.
B: OK! Let’s brainstorm some concrete text.
And so it goes on, until we end up with what I posted.
It needn’t be confrontational at all. You’re all on the same team, but the people paying the bills have the final call, and good lawyers have no problem with that. Indeed, they’re used to it. Likewise a good PR flak will have no problem if you take a lawyer’s conflicting advice. On most issues, they’ll agree.