When Title IX investigators handle a case, university lawyers have 'a few suggestions'

An awkward intersection lies between the work of Michigan State University’s lawyers and its Title IX investigators.

In theory, the Office of General Counsel and Office of Institutional Equity have vastly divergent mandates: one is simply tasked with limiting legal liabilities, while the other strives to investigate campus misconduct and enforce civil rights laws.

Nearly 1,000 pages of documents obtained by The State News through a public records request complicate that tidy division.

They reveal that from the very start of a case, those investigating allegations regularly talk to university lawyers, sharing copies of evidence and exchanges with involved parties. Then, as cases progress, investigators sometimes send drafts of reports to university lawyers, requesting that they edit them.

The communication is constant. In fact, the volume of recent emails between staffers in the general counsel’s office and one outside investigator was so great that MSU took over eight months and charged The State News more than $1,000 to provide them in response to Freedom of Information Act Requests.

University lawyers are not supposed to interfere in Title IX cases. The Office of Institutional Equity, or OIE, is designed as an independent investigative authority; the Department of Education even once asked MSU to ensure such independence is preserved.

Even so, Title IX experts told The State News that meddling is commonly allowed to fester. MSU and its investigator denied that any inappropriate interference is occurring at the university. But, the experts said the internal MSU emails don’t rule it out, at least not in their heavily redacted form.

It’s an issue the university has long wrestled with. In 2017, records show that lawyers blatantly interfered with a Title IX investigation. Though MSU said it put a stop to the practice shortly after, an external review in 2023 raised the issue again. University leaders again conceded that the interference had happened, but promised that this time, it was really over. 

The new records obtained by The State News, which include communications through 2024, raise a question: Is it?

‘A dog in the fight’

When people think of Title IX investigations, they tend to imagine something akin to criminal courtroom proceedings — but the reality is far from it, said Nicole Bedera, a sociologist who recently published a book about the inner workings of Title IX investigations and studied them for her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Michigan.

While university investigators are often framed as neutral arbiters, they work for the institution that employs or enrolls the parties involved in their cases. And, that institution could have big legal liabilities if things don’t go the right way, Bedera said. 

"They’re looking out for the university," she said. Investigators often act "as if all parties are hostile to the university, as if any party could bring a lawsuit at any time, or go to the press at any time."

That dynamic is often lost on participants in the cases, said New York Title IX attorney Laura Dunn. 

They think it’s just an adjudication between accusers and accused, forgetting that universities themselves "have a dog in the fight," said Dunn, who works on matters of campus sexual assault as a lawyer, consultant and expert witness.

Enter the general counsel. On paper, their involvement in Title IX cases is limited to answering questions to make sure investigators follow relevant laws. But in practice, Bedera said, they often end up playing a much larger role. These cases could bring about hefty liabilities, which some university lawyers look to minimize by getting involved, she said.

Take, for example, MSU's recent high-profile investigation of sexual harassment by former football coach Mel Tucker.

The investigation was ostensibly independent, so much so that the university hired an "outside investigator," who isn’t an employee of MSU, to handle the case. But throughout her work, that investigator collaborated with the general counsel’s office and other administrators.

The outside investigator was Rebecca Veidlinger, an Ann Arbor-based attorney who previously worked in the University of Michigan's Title IX office and as a sex crimes prosecutor.

Veidlinger briefly worked at MSU back in 2015 as the interim deputy Title IX coordinator. Since then, the university has brought her in to handle a number of high-profile cases, including the publicized sexual assault allegations against members of the football team in 2017. A recent contract shows that MSU pays her $300 an hour to investigate cases.

Soon after taking the Tucker case, she had calls with university lawyers to discuss the matter. She also met with HR administrators and the athletic director; and, after the investigation was revealed in news reports, but before the university fired Tucker or made a decision in the case, Veidlinger sent university lawyers copies of her investigative report and interview notes for review.

The decision to use an outside investigator like Veidlinger is made by the OIE, while the contract with them is then authorized and signed by the general counsel’s office, said university spokesperson Emily Guerrant.

In certain cases, that’s done because OIE simply lacks the capacity or expertise needed to fully investigate, Guerrant said. In others, outside investigators are employed because the OIE has a potential conflict of interest, she said. MSU is also required under Michigan law to use one when investigating someone who has been accused before.

A longstanding relationship

The Tucker case was far from the only one where lawyers and administrators worked with investigators. Across the hundreds of email exchanges reviewed by The State News — spanning between 2021 and the end of 2024 — collaboration was constant, though the exact nature of it is unclear.

In response to The State News’ Freedom of Information Act requests, MSU redacted the substance of almost all of its lawyers’ conversations, citing attorney-client privilege.

Those redactions could obscure collaboration that is totally innocent, Dunn said. It's "helpful and good" for university lawyers to help Title IX offices comply with the complicated 1972 gender equity law that is their namesake, she said. General counsel can help investigators interpret and follow rules and regulations, ensuring the process goes smoothly and the university isn’t liable for any missteps. 

Veidlinger insisted that such is the case in her communications with MSU’s general counsel. She told The State News that university lawyers were simply giving her legal advice and information on MSU-specific guidelines. Some of the emails do show just that.

Associate General Counsel Shannon Torres, for example, advised Veidlinger on interpreting MSU's templates for OIE filings and responding to emails from parties raising procedural issues. She also appeared to help Veidlinger when uncommon situations arose during the investigations, like when a witness in a case asked for supportive measures, which are typically only offered to accusers and the accused.

Other interactions are murkier and, in some cases, suggest a collaborative relationship that went beyond sporadic and specific legal questions.

As investigations progressed, Veidlinger kept Torres in the loop. She frequently forwarded Torres' email exchanges with case participants, adding notes like "FYI," and told her who she interviewed and when. Twice, after meeting with individuals involved in her investigation over Zoom, Veidlinger sent Torres summaries of their conversations. 

At least ten times, she also gave general counsel access to files related to her OIE cases, like investigation reports and files of evidence submitted by participants, according to the emails. Sometimes, the documents were paired with requests for help. Other times, Veidlinger didn’t appear to explain why she was sharing the documents.

In June 2024, Veidlinger sent Torres an online file-sharing portal containing a draft of her investigation report in an OIE case, "for MSU's internal review." That September, she sent Torres a link to her "draft investigation materials."

At least once, the file sharing went the other way around. In September 2021, Torres sent Veidlinger 16 files that "may be relevant for the cases you are coordinating." Any details about the files were redacted.

In June 2021, Veidlinger wrote to Torres suggesting an advisor for an individual whose name was redacted. In OIE hearings, accusers and the accused are allowed an advisor who acts somewhat like a lawyer would in courtroom proceedings.

Torres’ response was mostly redacted, writing that "We are familiar with (redacted)." Veidlinger quickly replied, offering to suggest new names. "Yes please," Torres responded. (Veidlinger told The State News that she is commonly asked by clients to suggest advisors because "I have interacted with so many of them over the course of my career, so I am quite familiar with the field of available attorneys and the quality of their work.")

At least six times, Torres made edits to Veidlinger’s writing, according to the emails. Among the changes, she proposed edits to "notice letters" that inform parties they are involved in OIE cases and a message that informs them an investigation has been closed.

In some cases, it appeared as though Torres’s changes were to ensure compliance with the law. In September 2021, Torres wrote to Veidlinger at 2:27 a.m. suggesting two additions to a notice letter to a respondent that "relate two Title IX specifically." The additions themselves are redacted.

Since their emails are heavily redacted, it isn’t always clear what exactly Torres wanted changed, or whether Veidlinger needed legal advice at all.

In April 2022, Veidlinger sent Torres a "draft of (redacted)." Torres replied with "a few suggestions … which you can take or leave as you see fit."

In September 2024, Veidlinger asked Torres and an OIE employee for feedback on a "Final Investigation Report" in an OIE case. Torres responded, asking whether she had specific questions or needed legal advice. Veidlinger said she had "no specific legal questions" and agreed to work with the OIE employee to finalize the report.

In statements to The State News, Veidlinger insisted that all of these edits were completely appropriate.

Because she does similar work for "so many different schools," each with its own policies and procedures, she likes to have people inside the universities look over her work and make sure everything is up to their standards, she said.

"I find it extremely helpful to have another set of eyes look over my reports, which are often lengthy and complicated," she said. "Sometimes the internal reviewers catch errors I may make regarding which provision of the policy should be cited, catch typos, and point out areas where my summaries of information are confusing/need stylistic edits."

At MSU, Veidlinger said, that oversight has never veered into interference.

"I have never had anyone at MSU suggest that I make a substantive change to a final investigation report or anything that altered the meaning of what I wrote, or suggest anything I have felt was inappropriate, or compromised the integrity of the investigation," she said.

A broader relationship

The collaboration goes beyond just the general counsel’s office and outside OIE investigators like Veidlinger.

Emails reviewed by The State News show in-house investigators on OIE staff communicating with university lawyers. Like the outside investigators, they sometimes appear to be simply seeking legal advice; other times, they requested phone calls to discuss cases or sent draft investigative reports to the general counsel’s office for feedback. Redactions obscure the contents of those interactions.

Other university investigators who enforce MSU’s anti-discrimination policy — which covers issues like racial and ethnic discrimination, rather than sexual misconduct — also collaborated with the general counsel’s office, having calls and discussing draft reports, according to the emails reviewed by The State News.

Throughout the cases, university lawyers and OIE investigators were also in frequent communication with MSU’s academic HR staff. Investigators drafted talking points for HR staffers, warned HR about upcoming filings, and met regularly to discuss cases. In one email, an academic HR staffer told an investigator that they expect updates on cases every two weeks.

In September 2021, Veidlinger appeared to tell university lawyers and academic HR administrators that someone was planning to file a formal OIE complaint and that "it sounds like it will be ready to go within the next few days." (Veidlinger told The State News that she believes the lawyers already knew the individual was deciding whether to file a complaint, and that she was "simply keeping counsel informed.")

She asked the lawyers and administrators if they would be willing to set up a meeting to discuss the looming matter. Before proposing times, she said, "I know it's annoying to have so many meetings."

A murky problem

Interactions between university lawyers and Title IX investigators should be limited to answering questions about compliance, said Joshua Engel, a Title IX lawyer who has represented both accusers and the accused.

If lawyers are "providing substantive advice or steering the investigation in a certain direction, then that is probably inappropriate," Engel said. 

With the redactions, it’s unclear whether that’s happening at MSU, said Engel, who reviewed some of the emails obtained by The State News. 

"It may be perfectly legitimate," Engel said. "But my experience is also that sometimes it's not perfectly legitimate."

Dunn, the Title IX attorney, said that most institutions let their general counsel’s interference in Title IX investigations "go too far" by "rewriting" and "re-deciding" cases. 

Bedera, too, said such interference is common. While researching for her book, she followed a case in which the Title IX investigator wanted a finding of responsibility, but was overruled by the general counsel, who ultimately changed the result, she said.

Sometimes, changes are made for a good reason, Dunn said. University lawyers can raise valid legal concerns about investigators’ work. But given that the communications are heavily redacted, she said, "how do we know?"

A thorny history

Though MSU has repeatedly denied that such interference occurs in its Title IX cases, various probes have repeatedly found otherwise.

In 2017, MSU lawyers strategically edited the findings of Title IX investigations into sexual abuse by the university’s former doctor, Larry Nassar, to reduce liability in civil lawsuits brought by survivors. The changes were "targeted towards phrasing/issues that are important from our broader litigation defense strategy," a university attorney explained in an email at the time.

That interference was revealed last year, when the university waived privilege over thousands of internal communications related to Nassar. At the time, a spokesperson claimed the practice stopped in 2019, after it was criticized by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which was investigating MSU’s handling of the now-disgraced serial abuser.

Another outside review, however, suggests the interference didn’t stop there. In 2023, the university’s board hired the law firm Quinn Emanuel to investigate the removal of a popular business dean, who was asked to resign after failing to report sexual misconduct by a subordinate. 

The firm eventually found that the Title IX office had sought to close their investigation into the underlying misconduct, but was instructed to reverse course by the general counsel’s office. University lawyers also meddled in a decision not to amend the formal complaint in the case, the firm found. That interference was "at odds with the independent authority (the Title IX office) was given," the firm wrote.

Last fall, Vice President for Civil Rights and Title IX Laura Rugless said in an interview with The State News that the issues raised by Quinn Emanuel were "really before I arrived here" and that she would "really like to talk about what we’re doing now." (Rugless started at MSU just after Quinn Emanuel finished their investigation.)

Asked about the new communications between Veidlinger and the general counsel’s office — many of which occurred well after Rugless took over — Guerrant, the university spokesperson, defended the relationship. MSU is following the Department of Education’s guidance on limiting collaboration between university lawyers and investigators, she said, "but employees, including those in OIE or external investigators, can consult (general counsel’s office) with legal questions."

She declined to answer specific questions, but said broadly that the general counsel’s office "does not interfere with the investigations themselves." They are, rather, "available to advise when legal questions arise," she said in a statement.