The statements by both Faegre and USAG strike me as incredibly dishonest. First, regarding Faegre’s statement, the “participation” of one Faegre lawyer in “reporting Nassar to the FBI in the summer of 2015” does not “refute” the allegations, supported by contemporaneous email exchanges, that Faegre was thereafter working with Nassar to provide false public explanations for Nassar’s subsequent absences from USA Gymnastics activities. (Moreover, the “obligation of client confidentiality” would bind Faegre only so far as it related to legal advice to its client (presumably USAG, although I have read at least one description of a Faegre attorney as “his [Nassar’s] lawyer”), and USAG could waive that right of confidentiality to permit Faegre to respond to the allegations. Furthermore, it is at least questionable whether attorney-client privilege would attach to any involvement of Mary Bono, who is not an attorney and works in an separate consulting entity within Faegre; any “obligation of client confidentiality” binding Bono would arise, if at all, from something other than her nonexistent role as USAG’s legal counsel.)
Second, although USAG’s statement to Time is characterized in the article that you’ve quoted as saying that “Bono’s work for the firm was not related to the 2015 investigation,” the quoted statement from USAG actually says that “Mary was not involved in FBD’s work with USA Gymnastics as counsel of record.” But of course Mary was not involved “as counsel of record.” She couldn’t be; she’s not even a lawyer. But that doesn’t mean or imply that she had no role in or knowledge of the Nassar matter prior to or separate from disclosures to the public.