Corporate Investigations Won't Wait, Even During a Pandemic
McDermott Will & Emery hosted a webinar Wednesday that examined the challenges that corporate legal departments are facing when trying to conduct internal investigations in the midst of a pandemic and a surge in remote working.
June 24, 2020 at 02:34 PM
4 minute read
The number of internal investigations that legal departments find themselves grappling with may be on the rise at a time when a period of enforced remote working is making it more difficult to conduct those processes than ever before.
On Wednesday, the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery hosted a webinar titled "Best Practices and Tactics for Conducting an Internal Investigation in the COVID-19 Era" and one of the biggest takeaways was that the pandemic opens the door to a whole host of investigative activity.
Panelist Dana McSherry, a partner at McDermott, pointed to the greater capacity for employee misconduct when working remotely. She also noted that the Department of Justice will likely be on high alert for COVID-19-related abuses, such as the misuse of stimulus money.
Organizations that chose to delay the resulting investigatory work may be playing with fire since key evidence or witnesses can be lost to layoffs or other unexpected developments. McSherry urged the audience to keep explicit notes of any deviations that may occur from a standard investigation schedule. "Any sort of alteration to your approach or your timeline should be thoughtful and reasonable and justified under the circumstances," McSherry said.
"I sort of think about it like this: If you get a subpoena while you are waiting to investigate an allegation of potential wrongdoing, you are certainly going to wish that you started your investigation sooner," McSherry said.
But to be sure, the realities of the pandemic and the surge in remote working that has followed can make conducting an investigation more difficult. For example, legal departments may have to increase their reliance on employees to preserve key data, which isn't always ideal given the range of technological competencies contained within a given workforce.
Panelist Shamis Beckley, a partner at McDermott, indicated that attorneys might have to be proactive about coaching employees to preserve data. One example she gave was teaching someone how to adjust the settings on their phone so that text messages aren't automatically deleted every few days.
"It's not just enough to tell people to preserve. Think about how you can help them do that or tell them how to do that," Beckley said.
A similar complication that may pop up—especially during a pandemic—is the safeguarding of personal health information. Beckley encouraged corporate attorneys in the audience to help their employees think carefully about any documents they may be handling that contain personal health information and to review the important safety measures like passwords.
One area where a greater emphasis on remote technologies may actually benefit the investigation process is conducting interviews. Matt Knowles, a partner with McDermott, pointed out that phone calls or videoconferences allow lawyers to cram more interviews into a shorter time frame, often at less expense to the client due to the lack of physical travel involved.
Still, this process requires a fair amount of strategy. Knowles encouraged people to think carefully about the use of phone versus video, which may hinge largely on what the interview subject is most amenable to or their level of technical prowess. The phone, for instance, may make it harder to tell if the interviewee is recording the conversation surreptitiously.
"Assume you are being recorded, assume that your questions and the way those questions are being answered could be disclosed down the road and be really thoughtful about your approach," Knowles said.
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 AllCompanies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Ballooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Shareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
'It's Not About Speed': Forging Strong Legal Department-Law Firm Relationships Starts With Humility, Trust
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Weil Practice Leaders Expected to Leave for Paul Weiss, Latham
- 2Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 3Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 4Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 5Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
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