Having already screwed the pooch, they need a reputable firm to proclaim that they did nothing wrong, so that they can point to it henceforth whenever the name Juan Williams pops up.
Not necessarily. Their ombudsman has already said they did wrong things. And the Board doesn't need a puff piece. If they did, they'd hire a PR firm. They need someone to bring integrity to the discussion, because there's a lot of misinformation being thrown around.
It's an interesting situation. In this day and time, when the blogosphere and message boards are filled with all kinds of theories and accusations, who can we trust to actually report facts? We don't trust the media, we don't trust the government, and there really is no one out there who can say "this is the truth." We just believe what we want to believe.
Bringing an outside law firm that has no interest in what it finds can bring credibility to the discussion, by laying out in full detail the timeline of what happened, and understanding why the decision was made in a scientific way, rather than an emotional way.
This is an organization that wants its reputation back. They don't care about CYA. That won't help their integrity. I think they have to follow what the company says, and if that means heads roll, so be it. But this time, there will be no question about what was done or why.