Preparing for an Internal Investigation Interview
Companies large and small conduct internal corporate investigations every day. These investigations can have many causes: an employee placing a call to the company hotline warning of accounting fraud, allegations of sexual harassment, a grand jury subpoena being served on the company or a whistleblower lawsuit being filed.
May 08, 2018 at 10:15 AM
5 minute read
Companies large and small conduct internal corporate investigations every day. These investigations can have many causes: an employee placing a call to the company hotline warning of accounting fraud, allegations of sexual harassment, a grand jury subpoena being served on the company or a whistleblower lawsuit being filed. Whatever the triggering event (and the list is virtually infinite), companies launch investigations to try to learn whether improper or illegal conduct took place, introduce remedial measures where problems exist and to get ahead of the allegations.
A primary source of evidence in the internal investigation is to interview company employees and executives. While the investigators reviewing documents, text messages and emails is certainly vital, speaking to the people involved can shed light on possible innocent explanations to the claims, put relevant documents into context and determine if conversations about key events happened but weren't put in writing.
Diligent preparation for an internal investigation interview—whether conducted by in-house counsel or outside counsel—is of great importance. But corporate executives and others should carefully consider several key issues:
- Consider if you should attend the interview. If you believe you have engaged in wrongdoing that may violate criminal law, sitting for an interview might be foolish. The questions you are asked and the answers you provide could cause you criminal exposure should your employer turn over what you said to prosecutors. Of course, be aware that refusing to sit for an interview could get you fired. But most people would prefer unemployment over a prison term.
- Hiring a lawyer. In some circumstances, it is appropriate for an employee to hire an attorney—sometimes paid for by the company, sometimes not. If the employee feels that his or her conduct could result in personal liability, hiring counsel could be wise. After all, when the interview begins, the company's counsel will likely explain that the lawyer represents the company, not the individual, and that while the discussions are privileged, that privileged is owned and controlled by the company. In other words, the company's counsel is on the side of the employee when there's no divergence between the employee's best interests and the company's. But if those interests do diverge at any point, the company may be best served by pointing the finger at the employee in a civil lawsuit, with the company's regulator or at the Justice Department.
- Review documents and emails. Assuming the employee is provided with advance notice of the interview, the employee should wrack his or her brain trying to figure out the topics that will be covered. If successful in figuring it out, the employee may be wise to review documents and emails surrounding the events to recall what took place.
- Don't delete or alter data. When an internal investigation begins, sometimes key employees will receive a document preservation notice directing them not to destroy or delete data. Follow that directive! And even if such a directive isn't issued, going back and trying to wipe hard drives or other devices is foolish and often useless. Getting caught deleting harmful data could be a breach of company policies and, more seriously, could result in criminal violations. On top of that, there's a decent chance that copies of the harmful documents exist elsewhere, meaning that your efforts achieved nothing other than making you look guilty with something to hide.
- Assume the questioner knows all. In many instances, the lawyer conducting the interview will have interviewed others and reviewed tons of documents and emails in anticipation of speaking with you. The lawyer may also have consulted with expert consultants to understand complex subjects like accounting procedures, surgical processes and environmental science. This means that the questioner, perhaps someone with little background in your area of expertise, will walk into the interview knowing lots about the issues at stake, the emails you have received and the discussions you have had. Assuming the lawyer hasn't reviewed something or doesn't understand something is not wise. There is a good chance you will get caught obfuscating, complicating and denying the truth. This is bad for you in many ways, and may cause you legal and career jeopardy.
- Be serious. The lawyer conducting the interview has a serious and important job to do. If he or she appears relaxed and friendly, don't let this trick you into complacency. Your words and your demeanor are key. Do not make the mistake of not taking the interview seriously. And make sure to answer questions in a thoughtful, truthful and straightforward manner.
- Tell the truth. Lying in an interview may result in two very unpleasant consequences. One, the lawyer questioning you could recommend that your employer terminate your employment. We have both done this before. And two, if the company decides to cooperate with the government and repeats your falsehoods, you could be charged with obstructing justice in a number of federal districts.
The internal investigation interview is a reality of life in corporate America today. Taking it very seriously and telling the truth is vital.
Dan Small is a partner in the Boston and Miami offices of Holland & Knight. The former federal prosecutor is the author of “Preparing Witnesses” and teaches continuing legal education programs.
Michael E. Hantman is a Miami partner with the firm. Both are members of Holland & Knight's white collar defense and investigations team. Contact Small at [email protected] and Hantman at [email protected].
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
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