3 Ways Government Attorneys Wished You Handled Investigations
At Legalweek 2019's 'The Government Reference Model' session, two government attorneys offered advice on how counsel should approach federal investigations.
January 29, 2019 at 02:53 PM
4 minute read
Dealing with a government investigation is likely one of the biggest concerns for any large enterprise. But for government attorneys, it can be equally frustrating if opposing counsel aren't well prepared or informed about the matter at hand. At Legalweek 2019's "The Government Reference Model" session, two government attorneys dispensed advice counsel should follow when dealing with investigations.
|Be Prepared
"The first rule is always going to be, be prepared," said Allison Stanton, director of e-discovery at the Office of the Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. Many, she said, "come in or send in the senior partner and they are going to wow us about their knowledge about a particular topic, but they don't know the facts of the case."
Being prepared, however, is more than just being well-versed in the matter being investigated. Glenn Melcher, special counsel for e-discovery at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said it's also pivotal to place legal holds on pertinent information and understand all custodians that have access to the data in question. "If you come to the meet-and-confer [conference] and can't tell me who the key players are, you're not prepared."
He added, "It's best to come to the meeting with someone who knows your data and knows your organization."
Still, Stanton cautioned that knowing where pertinent data resides doesn't just mean running search terms over databases or relying solely on technology. "We need to get back to the sleuthing part, the detective work, because as a prosecutor or as a litigator, one of the first questions [we ask] in a witness interview is, 'Do you have data or information on X?'"
|Enable and Listen to Your Whistleblowers
There are many sources that can trigger a government investigation, including consumer complaints, referrals from state AGs, or even public news reports. Mitigating the risks from these sources usually requires a company to be aware and address of any potentially legal liability problems within its own offices before they evolve into larger problems.
For Stanton, this means enabling whistleblowers, who she noted were the cause of many civil FTC investigations. "One of the things proactively you can do before we knock on the door is …make sure we are addressing potential issues, because whistleblowers are a big [source]."
And even if a company is able to keep a potentially illicit situation or practice from being disclosed by whistleblowers or made public, government investigators may still be able to sense that something is wrong. Melcher, for instance, noted the CFPB does its own market research to see where there are anomalies with certain financial transactions or companies.
|Remember: It's a Small World
Attorneys who are difficult to work with or have strained relationships with government investigators will be well remembered by federal lawyers across D.C. "We are usually not only very aware of organizations, but also very aware of in-house personalities and sometimes external counsel," Stanton said.
She added that an attorney's reputation is their most important capital they have, "so it should not be squandered because it will travel among circles."
Melcher said for any investigation at the CFPB, attorneys start by asking others in the agency if they have dealt with a particular company or in-house counsel before. They will then go ask their colleagues across other agencies in the federal government to get insight on a particular attorney. At the end of the day, it's likely that someone will have some insight.
"It is still a small community, even though you work in different places," Stanton 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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