The building could have been perfectly safe but the lawyer wants to "win" so says "fuck you we won't provide the report". The lawyer has no stake in the health of the project, if they are a litigator they just care about "winning".
Alternatively the building could have been about to collapse but the lawyer wants to "win" and doesn't live there so says "fuck you we won't provide it." Same result, different safety profile.
The issue is HOAs and management companies have warchests for stuff like this, individual owners of partial-buildings generally do not have a lot of money to fund lawyers until the judgment happens.
Obviously I don't know the details but their lawyer being an adversarial asshole sounds most likely to me.
What other explanation is there? Like... was the board planning to sell their units before people realized the building had problems?
The buildings were approaching an age where more significant/costly maintenance is necessary and I don't think they wanted to have to do those things.