Grand Jury Investigation Advice to In-House Counsel
The notice of a grand jury investigation of a company often starts in this fashion: in-house counsel arrives at the corporate office in the morning to be told that a company official has learned that several of his employees were visited by government agents the night before requesting an interview. The official is not sure what government agency is involved, and how many employees were contacted. He reports that he is running it down. It takes at least until the afternoon to determine the identity of the agents, the identity of the employees contacted, and the subject matter of the inquiry. The report from the supervisor usually omits the most important information, "what did the employees tell the agents."
September 25, 2017 at 06:56 PM
17 minute read
The notice of a grand jury investigation of a company often starts in this fashion: in-house counsel arrives at the corporate office in the morning to be told that a company official has learned that several of his employees were visited by government agents the night before requesting an interview. The official is not sure what government agency is involved, and how many employees were contacted. He reports that he is running it down. It takes at least until the afternoon to determine the identity of the agents, the identity of the employees contacted, and the subject matter of the inquiry. The report from the supervisor usually omits the most important information, “what did the employees tell the agents.”
In-house counsel must quickly employ outside counsel to determine the scope of the investigation, how company employees or officials are involved, the need for a grand jury, and the need for unannounced interviews of employees at their homes. It is important to get as much information as possible about the possible criminal violation and who may be involved. The existence of the investigation means that the government has come across some evidence of wrongdoing; perhaps the prosecutors have not discovered the entire problem, but in-house counsel cannot wait to see what they find. It is possible that there is an employee who is a whistleblower giving information to the government. Only outside counsel with experience in white-collar matters can handle such an engagement. A local criminal lawyer who deals mainly with street crime is not the choice. Another reason for outside counsel is that the investigation may involve matters that house counsel has handled; therefore, house counsel may be a potential witness.
A word of caution. Many large law firms have departments described as corporate or business investigation departments. These are generally staffed to perform large scale investigations of corporations to determine any malfeasance by corporate officers or employees. They operate with large staffs, partners and associates with laptops that could be costly. The attorneys are generally not defense minded, and rarely go to trial in defense of a corporation or corporate officials. These units are often staffed by former prosecutors who are operating as civilian prosecutors. There are many smaller firms that are in business of defending a corporation or corporate officials. Michael J. Engle, a white-collar defense attorney, offered this advice, “When selecting outside attorneys, in-house counsel should always request a proposed budget. Does the client want the functional equivalent of a private prosecutor or a more defense oriented advocate leading the matter? How many lawyers does this investigation really require? These are key questions for house counsel and the client when deciding to engage the services of a law firm.”
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 AllBosworth Claims It Was Kline & Specter, Not Him, That Breached Settlement Terms
4 minute readSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute read'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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