Many public relations professionals will have been following Canada’s Maple Leaf Foods crisis since the story of listeria-tainted packaged meats possibly contributing to the deaths of at least 20 people first hit in August. The company’s CEO, Michael McCain, from the point that the story was linked with Maple Leaf, was unusually and, some would say, admirably candid with the media and, thus, the public.

Many PR professionals I know found McCain’s candor refreshing. He was forthcoming and free with taking responsibility, making apologies and accepting personal blame for whatever his company may have done wrong. Some people rushed to compare Maple Leaf’s handling of the crisis with the management of the 1982 Tylenol crisis, which is today heralded by many as the all-time greatest example of effective crisis management.

Any public relations professional who has worked with a publicly traded company knows that the balance between open communication and legal responsibility can be precarious. In times of crisis, the PR professional generally wants to be as publicly honest and open as possible, while the legal department often would rather say nothing. Saying a lot and accepting blame where it is due is often considered ethical and responsible, whereas saying nothing may reduce the chances of being found guilty in any future court proceedings.

So it’s understandable that McCain’s unusual frankness won the hearts and minds of PR professionals, because his outspokenness won the hearts and minds of the general public – those who were affected by the listeriosis outbreak and those, of course, who purchase Maple Leaf’s products.

But now McCain’s candor and forthright honesty may come back to bite him and his company. The Toronto Star has uncovered a series of internal e-mails and memos written by McCain that further support McCain’s penchant for admirable-but-potentially-legally-risky frankness. In the messages clearly – and perhaps naively – intended only for Maple Leaf employees, McCain shows his disdain for the general public, lawyers, consultants in general, the elderly and frail, and the media.

“It is amazing how – even when one thinks they know the subject cold – how a reporter can drive a person to say unwanted, or inappropriate, things. A news reporter is more interested in a headline, than the accuracy of the story,” McCain is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying to employees.

Reading the Star’s story, it appears that McCain was saying one thing to the media and quite another to his employees via e-mail messages that, remarkably, he must have thought would not be leaked.

When it comes to crisis communications, those of Maple Leaf and Tylenol are not entirely comparable. The Tylenol problem was caused by forces outside of the company; Maple Leaf’s listeriosis occurred within Maple Leaf’s operations. Tylenol had adhered to standards and procedures for packaging in place at the time; it is not yet known how listeriosis-tainted products left the Maple Leaf factory. Tylenol worked quickly to improve the tamper-resistance of its products; Maple Leaf so far has not revealed how it will guarantee in the future that its packaged food will be safe from potentially deadly bacteria.

The Tylenol case will continue to be held up as an example of dealing perfectly with a company-threatening crisis.

Unfortunately, with class-action suits pending, the Maple Leaf example of remarkable openness and honesty could eventually be highlighted in PR school as a case of when it might have been better to listen to the lawyers.