There can be little doubt that the most famous warning in the American legal system is the Miranda warning. Absent a Miranda warning or a valid waiver of rights, a court may find that the statements a defendant made during custodial interrogation were unconstitutionally obtained and are therefore subject to exclusion.
In the context of a corporate internal investigation, the closest analogue to a Miranda warning is the Upjohn warning—sometimes referred to as the “corporate Miranda.” When conducting an employee interview as part of an internal investigation, corporate counsel typically warns the employee that counsel represents the employer and not the employee, that any privilege attaching to statements made during the interview belongs solely to the company, and that the company may waive the privilege and disclose the contents of the interview to third parties, including the government.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
