When an individual is exposed or caught in sin - any sin - there is typically two vary different responses:
1). Defend. Shut yourself out of all other conversation. The individual will seek to correct himself, yet preserve his station in life. No public humiliation is needed. No public confession is made. Guilt will be admitted to the minimum level necessary, so that his goals and dreams and self-grandeur may be preserved. He will seek to stop the bleeding as quickly as possible, without seeking knowledge of any infection that may be in the blood. Sometimes, boundaries or safeguards will be put in place to prevent not really the sin, but the sorrow from the result of the sin - thus, security measures against the sin are in place, but the heart is not changed.
2). Repent. A full humiliation occurs. The individual opens himself completely to examination. He cries "Search me O God and know my heart, try me and see if there be any wicked way in me." He will get help from a counselor who is experienced with the case because he does not trust his own heart for he knows that the heart is desperately wicked. Left to himself, he will patch the wound and not care for the disease that is within. Thus, he asks another to help him discover the root of the problem and seek forgiveness for the sin and grace to overcome. This person has no problem with prying questions, as uncomfortable as they are, because he knows he is guilty but forgiven and desires to help others not suffer the same ensnarement to sin.
It seems as though organizations and churches often act like individuals. I can understand the new pastor meeting with a lawyer to try to get an understanding of the predicament of the church. He should. It only makes sense. He should have a good understanding of the liability of the church in this case, and the many that may have or might come out from it.
I also understand how much of the leadership has handled this issue with their own church members first, those of us who have called the church home second, and the other churches that looked to them for leadership third. They have been anything but open and honest, only divulging the lease amount of information as possible, attempting to keep their esteem before man. A deep investigation would reveal the corruption of many of the leadership and would destroy their esteem among man. Sad really, that their goal is now saving face. Thus, it could seem as though the new pastor is conspiring with lawyers to hide as much as possible.
I guess all we can do is make wild guesses as to the intent of the meeting.
The real question is, which restaurant and what did they have? I really miss the Saganaki at the Wheel! I wonder what it would mean if they ate 3 courses versus just 1?