This article was reprinted with permission from FCPAméricas Blog, for which Matteson Ellis is founder, editor and regular contributor.
Attorneys conducting FCPA interviews generally start with a routine “Upjohn” warning – a sort of lawyerly throat-clearing. But to interviewees hearing this warning for the first time, it can be startling. In-house lawyers have reported to me that outside U.S. counsel are generally terrible at providing an Upjohn warning in a way that does not scare the living daylights out of interviewees. This presents particular problems with foreign interviewees who are unused to U.S. law (and U.S. lawyers). Foreigners may confuse Upjohn warnings with the formal reading of Miranda rights they have seen on TV, causing alarm and an unnecessarily chilling effect on the interview.
Generally, a lawyer giving an “Upjohn” warning does the following:
- Notifies interviewees that the lawyer represents the company and not the interviewee,
- Asks interviewees to keep the information discussed in the interview confidential to protect the attorney-client privilege and
- Notifies the interviewee that while the interview is covered by the attorney-client privilege, that privilege belongs to the company, which could decide to waive it without the interviewee’s consent (e.g., if the company cooperates with an investigation by law enforcement).
The warning is named after Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), a case in which the Supreme Court confirmed that communications between corporate counsel and corporate employees can be protected under the attorney-client privilege. If communications are “privileged,” then neither the authorities nor other parties are entitled to see them without a waiver or an exception to the privilege.
Such protection is extremely useful in the context of investigations, as it permits lawyers to communicate about allegations and facts without worrying that their communications will become evidence against the company in subsequent litigation. But to ensure that the claim of attorney-client privilege can be made, lawyers must be careful to provide appropriate disclosures – i.e., the Upjohn warning.
Reducing the Shock Factor
The following are four suggestions for how U.S. lawyers can provide Upjohn warnings in a way that is thorough and accurate, but less frightening.
1. Provide Some Context: Taking the time to talk to the interviewee at the outset about the reason for the interview and for the Upjohn warning can put the interviewee at ease and help build rapport. It can be helpful to have the Upjohn warning described by local counsel, who will likely be more able to bridge cultural or linguistic gaps. Often, employees will be more candid in answering questions when local counsel makes such a warning, even if it is just to repeat the U.S. counsel’s explanation and to ask if the witness has any questions.
2. Discuss the Nature of the Interview in Advance. In the context of mergers and acquisition due diligence and compliance assessments, some companies choose to provide management of the subject company with an overview of the review process. This will include the nature of the interviews to be conducted. This allows an opportunity for questions about various topics, including the Upjohn warning.
3. Make it Routine: The more the interviewer establishes that warnings are standard and not specifically directed to the interviewee, the less likely the interviewee is to overreact. For example, lawyers can clarify that a compliance audit is a periodic exercise at the company, and that it is standard practice for international companies to regularly assess their own compliance practices. For an internal investigation, it may be useful to explain that when the company receives a substantiated allegation of wrongdoing, it will always conduct some level of review. It may also be useful to describe how international anti-corruption compliance has become a basic standard for all companies doing multinational business, and that reviews and investigations are now a standard component of compliance.
4. Use Local Language: There is simply no substitute for conducting the interview in the interviewee’s own language. It can reduce an interviewee’s anxiety about miscommunication. In contrast, using a translator makes establishing rapport difficult. Conveying technical concepts like legal privilege is also much easier to do when explained in a person’s first language, rather than in English, especially if their English is not very strong.
Finally, for lawyers looking to perfect the technical aspect of their Upjohn warnings, an ABA task force has prepared a document summarizing best practices.
The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author in his or her individual capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone else, including the entities with which the author is affiliated, the author`s employers, other contributors, FCPAméricas or its advertisers. The information in the FCPAméricas blog is intended for public discussion and educational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice to its readers and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It does not seek to describe or convey the quality of legal services. FCPAméricas encourages readers to seek qualified legal counsel regarding anti-corruption laws or any other legal issue. FCPAméricas gives permission to link, post, distribute or reference this article for any lawful purpose, provided attribution is made to the author and to FCPAméricas LLC.
Matteson Ellis serves as Special Counsel to the FCPA and International Anti-Corruption practice group of Miller & Chevalier Chartered in Washington, DC. He is also founder and principal of Matteson Ellis Law PLLC, a law firm focusing on FCPA compliance and enforcement. He has extensive experience in a broad range of international anti-corruption areas. Previously, he worked with the anti-corruption and anti-fraud investigations and sanctions proceedings unit at The World Bank.
Mr. Ellis has helped build compliance programs associated with some of the largest FCPA settlements to date; performed internal investigations in more than 20 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, Europe and Africa considered “high corruption risk” by international monitoring organizations; investigated fraud and corruption and supported administrative sanctions and debarment proceedings for The World Bank and The Inter-American Development Bank; and is fluent in Spanish and Portuguese.
Mr. Ellis focuses particularly on the Americas, having spent several years in the region working for a Fortune 50 multinational corporation and a government ethics watchdog group. He regularly speaks on corruption matters throughout the region and is editor of the FCPAméricas Blog.
He has worked with every facet of FCPA enforcement and compliance, including legal analysis, internal investigations, third party due diligence, transactional due diligence, anti-corruption policy drafting, compliance training, compliance audits, corruption risk assessments, voluntary disclosures to the U.S. government and resolutions with the U.S. government. He has conducted anti-corruption enforcement and compliance work in the following sectors: agriculture, construction, defense, energy/oil and gas, engineering, financial services, medical devices, mining, pharmaceuticals, gaming, roads/infrastructure and technology.
Mr. Ellis received his law degree, cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center, his masters in foreign affairs from Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, and his B.A. from Dartmouth College. He co-founded and serves as chairman of the board of The School for Ethics and Global Leadership in Washington, D.C. He is a member of the District of Columbia, Texas, New York, and New Jersey bar associations.