Regulatory: Surviving a regulatory inspection
One in-house counsels most challenging responsibilities can be surviving a regulatory inspection of the firms regulated business activities.
November 07, 2012 at 05:43 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
One in-house counsel's most challenging responsibilities can be surviving a regulatory inspection of the firm's regulated business activities. This article discusses several important principles to consider when preparing for a regulatory inspection, managing the inspection process and responding to findings from the inspection.
Preparing for a regulatory inspection
An inspection is inevitable for any regulated business. Counsel responsible for managing the inspection should use this inevitability to the firm's advantage by preparing for the inspection. This preparation takes two general forms:
- Ongoing, daily preparation taken in advance of the inspection
- Preparation specific to the inspection.
Prior to an inspection, counsel should monitor regulatory developments affecting the firm and amend the firm's policies, procedures and practices to address areas of focus by the regulator and its staff. The firm should also amend policies, procedures and practices to address changes in its businesses and in regulations affecting those businesses. Finally, counsel should confirm that the policies, procedures and practices adequately address any deficiency or weakness that the regulator's staff identified during prior inspections of the firm, as recidivism is often a primary factor leading to enforcement actions.
Once the firm receives a notice of inspection, counsel should assemble a team of personnel who will be responsible for gathering information responsive to requests for information from the staff of the regulator. Counsel should forward a copy of the regulator's communication to the firm's outside counsel, and request that outside counsel be ready if needed. The firm should designate one individual, often counsel, who will be responsible for interacting with the regulatory staff during the inspection. That individual should oversee all production of documents for the inspection. If the regulatory staff will conduct interviews of firm personnel, counsel should prepare potential interviewees, advising them to be truthful and responsive to inquiries, but to avoid speculation in responding to questions. Counsel also should attend the interviews and record the matters discussed during the meetings.
Managing the regulatory inspection
Managing a successful regulatory inspection requires effective organization because prompt responses to regulatory requests for information evidence a firm's commitment to compliance. Effective organization addresses at least three activities:
- Obtaining information necessary to respond to a specific request for information
- Reviewing that information for responsiveness and privilege prior to its production
- Retaining copies of the produced information
Counsel should review each request for information and delegate responsibility for the corresponding response to a member of the inspection team, setting a deadline for production of the response. Counsel or a designated team member should review each document or record to be produced and assess whether the document is responsive to the request for information, seeking clarification from the regulatory staff where the scope of the request is not adequately defined. Counsel or the designated team member should also assess whether the document contains privileged information, seeking assistance from outside counsel for such determination, if necessary, and creating a privilege log of any information for which the firm will seek privilege. Finally, counsel should ensure that the firm retains copies of all information it produced for the regulator and seek confidential treatment of such produced information to the extent the information contains confidential business information. Confidential treatment requests can prevent unintended dissemination of the information by a regulator.
Responding to findings from the regulatory inspection
Often, the regulatory staff will convey to the firm in an exit or other similar interview its initial findings from the inspection. Counsel should take this opportunity to correct any misunderstandings of the staff. If the firm has corrected a potential deficiency or weakness identified during the inspection prior to inspection's conclusion, counsel should attempt to persuade the regulatory staff that it has adequately addressed the deficiency or weakness, thereby seeking to avoid a written deficiency or finding on the matter.
Once the firm receives written notice of regulatory findings, counsel should assess the findings, determining those with which the firm agrees and disagrees. Counsel should coordinate modifications to the firm's policies, procedures and practices promptly to address the findings with which the firm agrees, incorporating the modifications into the company's daily, ongoing procedures to the extent possible. Counsel should coordinate the preparation of a written response to the regulatory staff that describes the modifications.
Occasionally, the firm may disagree with a regulatory finding because the finding reflects a misunderstanding of the firm's business or policies or practices or the finding reflects the application of a legal principle to the firm with which the firm disagrees. Counsel should coordinate the preparation of the written response to the regulatory staff with respect to the finding, ensuring that the response presents the factual or legal basis for the firm's position. Contested findings often require further interaction with the regulatory staff to resolve the finding and the firm's response.
While preparing for and surviving a regulatory inspection can be one of the most challenging aspects of an in-house counsel's job, adequate preparation and organization can mitigate the challenges a firm faces once an inspection begins.
One in-house counsel's most challenging responsibilities can be surviving a regulatory inspection of the firm's regulated business activities. This article discusses several important principles to consider when preparing for a regulatory inspection, managing the inspection process and responding to findings from the inspection.
Preparing for a regulatory inspection
An inspection is inevitable for any regulated business. Counsel responsible for managing the inspection should use this inevitability to the firm's advantage by preparing for the inspection. This preparation takes two general forms:
- Ongoing, daily preparation taken in advance of the inspection
- Preparation specific to the inspection.
Prior to an inspection, counsel should monitor regulatory developments affecting the firm and amend the firm's policies, procedures and practices to address areas of focus by the regulator and its staff. The firm should also amend policies, procedures and practices to address changes in its businesses and in regulations affecting those businesses. Finally, counsel should confirm that the policies, procedures and practices adequately address any deficiency or weakness that the regulator's staff identified during prior inspections of the firm, as recidivism is often a primary factor leading to enforcement actions.
Once the firm receives a notice of inspection, counsel should assemble a team of personnel who will be responsible for gathering information responsive to requests for information from the staff of the regulator. Counsel should forward a copy of the regulator's communication to the firm's outside counsel, and request that outside counsel be ready if needed. The firm should designate one individual, often counsel, who will be responsible for interacting with the regulatory staff during the inspection. That individual should oversee all production of documents for the inspection. If the regulatory staff will conduct interviews of firm personnel, counsel should prepare potential interviewees, advising them to be truthful and responsive to inquiries, but to avoid speculation in responding to questions. Counsel also should attend the interviews and record the matters discussed during the meetings.
Managing the regulatory inspection
Managing a successful regulatory inspection requires effective organization because prompt responses to regulatory requests for information evidence a firm's commitment to compliance. Effective organization addresses at least three activities:
- Obtaining information necessary to respond to a specific request for information
- Reviewing that information for responsiveness and privilege prior to its production
- Retaining copies of the produced information
Counsel should review each request for information and delegate responsibility for the corresponding response to a member of the inspection team, setting a deadline for production of the response. Counsel or a designated team member should review each document or record to be produced and assess whether the document is responsive to the request for information, seeking clarification from the regulatory staff where the scope of the request is not adequately defined. Counsel or the designated team member should also assess whether the document contains privileged information, seeking assistance from outside counsel for such determination, if necessary, and creating a privilege log of any information for which the firm will seek privilege. Finally, counsel should ensure that the firm retains copies of all information it produced for the regulator and seek confidential treatment of such produced information to the extent the information contains confidential business information. Confidential treatment requests can prevent unintended dissemination of the information by a regulator.
Responding to findings from the regulatory inspection
Often, the regulatory staff will convey to the firm in an exit or other similar interview its initial findings from the inspection. Counsel should take this opportunity to correct any misunderstandings of the staff. If the firm has corrected a potential deficiency or weakness identified during the inspection prior to inspection's conclusion, counsel should attempt to persuade the regulatory staff that it has adequately addressed the deficiency or weakness, thereby seeking to avoid a written deficiency or finding on the matter.
Once the firm receives written notice of regulatory findings, counsel should assess the findings, determining those with which the firm agrees and disagrees. Counsel should coordinate modifications to the firm's policies, procedures and practices promptly to address the findings with which the firm agrees, incorporating the modifications into the company's daily, ongoing procedures to the extent possible. Counsel should coordinate the preparation of a written response to the regulatory staff that describes the modifications.
Occasionally, the firm may disagree with a regulatory finding because the finding reflects a misunderstanding of the firm's business or policies or practices or the finding reflects the application of a legal principle to the firm with which the firm disagrees. Counsel should coordinate the preparation of the written response to the regulatory staff with respect to the finding, ensuring that the response presents the factual or legal basis for the firm's position. Contested findings often require further interaction with the regulatory staff to resolve the finding and the firm's response.
While preparing for and surviving a regulatory inspection can be one of the most challenging aspects of an in-house counsel's job, adequate preparation and organization can mitigate the challenges a firm faces once an inspection begins.
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
© 2025 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 AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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