What Every General Counsel Needs to Know About the Intelligence Cycle
Because general counsel are involved in the megadeals, allegations of wrongdoing, and bet-the-company litigation that carry the greatest exposure for the company, general counsel need to understand intelligence investigations and the use of the intelligence cycle.
September 28, 2018 at 02:42 PM
5 minute read
To develop policy and make informed decisions, heads of state look to the heads of their intelligence agencies for answers to critical questions. To protect the company against legal, regulatory, and reputational harm, companies should do the same. Because general counsel are involved in the megadeals, allegations of wrongdoing, and bet-the-company litigation that carry the greatest exposure for the company, general counsel need to understand intelligence investigations and the use of the intelligence cycle.
|An Intelligence Investigation Is Not a Background Investigation
Good intelligence work is not an Internet search, a public records database search, or a background investigation. Good intelligence work is about being able to find the dots, connect the dots, and articulately report on the picture that emerges.
|The Intelligence Cycle Works Because It Is an Iterative, Consultative Process
To produce accurate, reliable intelligence, agencies use a process known simply as the Intelligence Cycle. The accompanying illustration depicts how the intelligence cycle works:
Requirements. The client is the first and most important person in the intelligence cycle. The client sets the requirements and establishes what must be obtained and what questions must be answered. At the outset of the investigation, there needs to be a conversation between the client and the investigators about why the investigation is being requested. In the corporate context, if investigative due diligence is needed in support of a merger or acquisition, then the deal, the parties, and any unique concerns need to be understood. If an internal investigation is required, then the allegations need to be understood. If the company is in litigation, then the pleadings must be reviewed, the allegations discussed, and the underlying facts understood. The discussion of the requirements should be an iterative, consultative process between the client and the intelligence agents, investigators, and analysts.
Planning and Direction. With the requirements understood, the intelligence agents, investigators, and analysts can develop a plan for meeting those requirements, assemble a team specific to that plan, as determined by the skills required and the geography involved, and direct the investigation toward answering the questions that need answering.
Collection: With the right capabilities and resources, the investigative team collects the information from which answers can be extrapolated. Depending on the investigation, this might require the use of open sources, public records, restricted databases, confidential sources, and surveillance.
Processing. The information collected then needs to be processed for analysis. Debriefing reports and surveillance reports might need to be written, photos and videos processed, computer and digital evidence forensically converted to a readable format, books and records entered in spreadsheets, translations and transcripts prepared.
Analysis and Production. Next, the information that has been collected and processed is analyzed and refined to produce an intelligence product that satisfies the requirements of the client, meets the needs of the investigation, and answers the questions. If the collection and processing stages were about finding the dots, then the analysis and production stage is about connecting those dots and being able to articulately report on the picture that emerges.
Dissemination. Like the requirements stage, the dissemination stage should, again, be an iterative, consultative process. There should be a conversation about the intelligence that has been developed. The client can then decide whether additional information is needed or whether newly developed leads should be pursued. In other words, intelligence developed during the first trip through the intelligence cycle often raises new questions to be answered during a second trip through the intelligence cycle. And the cycle continues—planning and directing, collecting, processing, analyzing and producing, and disseminating a new intelligence product.
|Law and Ethics
In any conversation about corporate intelligence, it cannot be overstated that the agents, investigators, and analysts, whether engaged by general counsel or by outside counsel on behalf of the company, need to follow the law. Companies continue to find themselves on the receiving end of negative press or a judge's ire because of the unlawful or unethical tactics of their outside investigators. Cloak-and-dagger corporate espionage may—or may not—make for entertaining television, movies or fiction, but it never makes for good headlines about a company or its lawyers.
|Quality Intelligence Enables the Company to Mitigate Legal, Regulatory, and Reputational Risk
The intelligence cycle works because the agents, investigators, and analysts involved in the process understand why the investigation is being conducted; they understand the issues and the questions that need to be answered; they have the capabilities and resources to obtain the information necessary to answer those questions; and they know how to refine that information so it can be acted upon as intelligence or, in litigation, introduced as evidence.
Jarrett Wolf is the president of Wolf, P.A. and focuses his practice on crisis management and investigations. He is a former prosecutor and DEA agent.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250