Why who runs it matters
An internal investigation led or directed by counsel can be protected by attorney-client privilege and work product rules, though that protection depends on how the work is structured and can be lost through careless sharing. Reviews run informally by HR or management may suit routine workplace complaints but usually lack that protection. Scope matters: questions defined too narrowly can miss the problem, while questions defined too broadly can become costly and unfocused. When senior leaders are involved, the board or an independent committee may need to oversee the work. Before the first interview, the company should decide how findings will be reported and to whom.
Interviews from both sides of the table
Company counsel conducting interviews represents the company, and interviewees should be told that the privilege belongs to the company, which may later share what was said with the government. Employees facing personal exposure may want their own lawyer, and many companies pay for one. Preservation notices should go out early, and documents and devices should be collected through a defensible process rather than by asking employees to forward items themselves. Employees should keep their own messages but not copy company files without asking. Retaliating against the person who raised the concern can create a separate claim, so how that person is treated during the investigation matters.
What happens with the findings
The end of an investigation brings its own choices: whether to discipline, remediate, disclose to regulators or prosecutors, or report to auditors. Self-disclosure policies at the Justice Department and some agencies can affect how a matter is treated, but disclosure is a judgment that should be made with a full view of the facts. A written report can be useful but may be harder to protect than an oral briefing. We look at what triggered the inquiry, who is involved, and what the company may already be required to report, and help set a scope and process that fits.
