No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe
Jump to a Section
  • At the Office
    • Ethics
    • HR Compliance
    • Leadership & Career
    • Well-Being at Work
  • Compliance & Risk
    • Compliance
    • FCPA
    • Fraud
    • Risk
  • Finserv & Audit
    • Financial Services
    • Internal Audit
  • Governance
    • ESG
    • Getting Governance Right
  • Infosec
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
  • Opinion
    • Adam Balfour
    • Jim DeLoach
    • Mary Shirley
    • Yan Tougas
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Featured

How Counsel Relationships Can Increase Scrutiny

by Jessica Nall
October 3, 2017
in Featured, Internal Audit
confident attorney in library

Rethinking Independence in Internal Investigations

Demonstrating and ensuring independence in internal investigations is a critical issue for corporate counsel to consider, especially when facing or anticipating parallel regulatory probes. How to properly do so is a nuanced process: as this piece explores, it is not as simple as the binary question of whether counsel conducting an internal investigation had a previous working relationship with the company.

with co-authors Nell Clement and Josh Malone

For a company under actual or potential government scrutiny, an independent internal investigation performed by outside counsel, sometimes coupled with cooperation with the government, can mean the difference between indictment and a much more palatable result. Often, outside counsel’s “independence” is conflated with “absolutely no prior work done for the subject company.” Indeed, some companies and boards categorically refuse to hire outside counsel to handle internal investigations if the firm has previously performed work for the company; this is out of concern that the government will assume that such counsel cannot conduct an “independent” investigation.

Although there are circumstances in which an entirely new firm should be hired for an internal investigation, imposing this sort of bright-line rule in every case may risk disqualifying a firm that is otherwise best equipped to handle a particular investigation, driving up costs and reducing efficiency while failing to increase credibility. In many situations, investigative counsel can be diligent, objective and independent despite having done some prior work for the client.  Investigative counsel that are familiar with the inner workings of a company from a prior relationship can bring enhanced efficiency and understanding to the investigation that can be extremely beneficial to the truth-finding process, as well as to cost-control efforts. The point at which a prior counsel relationship may defeat independence must be considered on a spectrum.  While hiring a firm with no prior relationship may be useful or even necessary for some types of investigations, in other circumstances, an existing or previous counsel relationship can enhance effectiveness with minimal – if any – threat to the investigation’s credibility.

As a threshold matter, while the government has stated that it favors “independent” investigations, it has offered little guidance on what that means. For example, the Department of Justice’s recent checklist evaluating corporate compliance programs notes only that an investigation should be “properly scoped” and “independent, objective, appropriately conducted and properly documented.” [1] Notably, the guidance does not state that a firm’s prior work for a company disqualifies it as investigative counsel in all circumstances, nor does it state that some degree of prior work makes such counsel any less able to conduct an independent investigation.  The U.S. Attorney’s Manual focuses instead on the credibility of the investigation, noting that “[w]hichever process the corporation selects, the government’s key measure of cooperation must remain the same as it does for an individual: has the party timely disclosed the relevant facts about the putative misconduct?”[2]

In the context of SEC investigations, Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(b)(4) requires that audit committees be authorized to engage “independent” counsel, but does not elaborate.[3] The SEC’s 2001 Seaboard Report, listing criteria for evaluating corporate cooperation, only briefly mentions prior company work: “If outside persons [conducted the review], had they done other work for the company? Where the review was conducted by outside counsel, had management previously engaged such counsel?”[4] However, the Report does not specify how the Commission is to evaluate such facts and does not characterize prior company work as impacting credibility.

Because most internal investigations, especially for public companies, will need to satisfy  auditors in addition to the government, it is helpful to consider the applicable audit standard regarding the level of independence required for a credible investigation result.  AU-C Section 500 (Audit Evidence) sets forth the audit standards that govern a public company audit that may rely on the findings of a “specialist” such as investigative counsel.[5] Notably, the audit standards provide that such specialists may be relied upon as objective despite prior or current business relationships as long as other indicia of objectivity are present. At least as far as the audit standards are concerned, the standard for credibility is “objectivity” rather than “independence,” a concept that also seems to better describe the government’s evaluation of credibility as a practical matter.

Although there are certainly situations when a company’s prior working relationship with outside counsel, especially if extensive, may impugn the credibility of an investigation, some amount of prior work by investigative counsel should not act as a de facto disqualifier. First, taken to its logical extreme, this overly restrictive standard would potentially prevent companies from engaging counsel best-suited to address a particular issue. Large companies regularly spread matters across a dozen or more law firms. If a company could not then choose one of these familiar firms for an internal investigation – when criminal liability and/or millions of dollars in fines are at stake – companies may be foreclosed from choosing the best qualified counsel for a particular investigation.  Second, the risks of perceived lack of objectivity based on a prior working relationship can in some situations be cured through structural safeguards. Depending on the type of investigation at issue, a company can establish lines of reporting and forms of supervision that allow outside counsel to bypass a prior or existing client contact. For example, investigating counsel that reports directly to the board or audit committee (or another special committee where appropriate) are less likely to be perceived as being improperly influenced by pre-existing in-house counsel relationships. In an appropriate case, the lawyers within a firm who worked on prior matters can also be walled off from the investigation team.

Like their auditors will, companies should weigh on an individual basis the question of whether outside counsel can conduct a thorough, objective investigation that will be viewed as credible  – realizing that there are instances in which a prior working relationship will be acceptable or even beneficial. For example, outside counsel with prior experience will often bring an in-depth understanding of the company’s business operations and relevant personnel – which can be crucial in time or dollar-constrained investigations. Likewise, if outside counsel previously worked as a company’s employment counsel, it will be well-acquainted with company policies regarding termination and thus able to quickly analyze employment repercussions – common issues in any internal investigation. Despite investigative counsel’s prior work, the government is still very likely to grant such findings considerable weight where objectivity is otherwise present.  For General Motors’ internal investigation on defective ignition switches, GM hired two law firms (King & Spalding and Jenner & Block) that had previously done legal work for the company.  GM reached a favorable settlement with the Department of Justice more quickly and for far less than other car companies involved in similar defective ignition switch investigations. Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, specifically cited GM’s internal investigation and cooperation as a reason for the favorable settlement.[6]

Choosing outside counsel with prior experience with the company may be especially appropriate where counsel has worked only on a limited number of unrelated cases. For example, in both the Yahoo! data breach and the Wells Fargo fraudulent account investigations, both investigating firms (Sidley Austin LLP and Shearman & Sterling, respectively) had previously been engaged for unrelated work.[7] On the other hand, there are clear instances where a company’s prior relationship with outside counsel should disqualify that counsel from conducting a subsequent internal investigation. For example, the government may view outside counsel as too self-interested to conduct an objective investigation if counsel was involved directly or even indirectly in the events under investigation. The seminal example is Vinson & Elkins’ investigation into the Enron fraud allegations.  Vinson was hired as investigative counsel despite the firm’s role in helping to create several off-the-books investment partnerships that were a focus of the government’s investigations.[8] The internal investigation concluded that the partnerships were legally appropriate, a result that did little to deter government scrutiny.

A similar situation exists when the company’s in-house or general counsel’s advice is itself under investigation, or where the actions of a non-lawyer client contact are under scrutiny.  Because of the risk that investigating counsel may be perceived as reticent to make findings that might result in discipline of their prior or current client contacts, a fully independent firm should be hired. The perceived lack of credibility may also require completely “new” counsel to investigate some whistleblower complaints. Depending on the severity of the conduct alleged, a whistleblower’s own perception of bias or fear of his or her identity being uncovered by longstanding counsel may make completely new counsel a safer choice.[9]

In summary, outside counsel’s independence should not be viewed as a strict binary determined solely by whether counsel had a previous working relationship with the company. The degree of independence required in a given situation should instead be considered on a spectrum, informed by the specifics of each case, with an overall eye toward counsel’s objectivity under the particular circumstances.

_________________________

[1] U. S. Department of Justice, Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs, available at https://www. justice. gov/criminal-fraud/page/file/937501/download.

[2] U. S. Department of Justice, U. S. Attorney’s Manual 9-28:720; see also id. (“The extent of the cooperation credit earned will depend on all the various factors that have traditionally applied in making this assessment [e. g. , the timeliness of the cooperation, the diligence, thoroughness and speed of the internal investigation, and the proactive nature of the cooperation. ])”

[3] Exchange Act Rule 10A-3(b)(4) (“Each audit committee must have the authority to engage independent counsel and other advisers, as it determines necessary to carry out its duties.”)

[4] U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Seaboard Report (Oct. 23, 2001), available at https://www. sec. gov/litigation/investreport/34-44969. htm.

[5] AU-C §500. A38. A39 et. seq.

[6] Ivory and Vlasic, $900 Million Penalty for G. M. ’s Deadly Defect Leaves Many Cold (Sept. 17, 2015), available at https://www. nytimes. com/2015/09/18/business/gm-to-pay-us-900-million-over-ignition-switch-flaw. html (“Mr. Bharara cited an internal investigation conducted for G. M. as favorable in determining the penalties paid by the automaker.  The two law firms hired for that inquiry, King & Spalding and Jenner & Block, had previously done legal work for G. M.  And court papers show that Anton R. Valukas, the chairman of Jenner & Block, who headed the G. M. investigation, helped represent the automaker in its talks with the Justice Department. ”)

[7] Sidley had previously represented a group of technology companies, including Yahoo!, in an amicus brief that it wrote in In re Seagate Litigation in 2007. See 2007 WL 1032685 (C. A. Fed. ). Shearman had previously represented Wells Fargo Securities LLC, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Co. , in a debt offering in 2015.  See http://www. shearman. com/en/newsinsights/news/2015/06/wells-fargo-in-fts-international-notes-offering.

[8] James Grimaldo and Peter Behr, Houston Law Firm Helped Craft Enron Deals (Jan. 27, 2002) available at https://www. washingtonpost. com/archive/politics/2002/01/27/houston-law-firm-helped-craft-enron-deals/a4011343-6a7e-432b-a526-697849e9bf1d/?utm_term=. e8eea215d9c9

[9] Dan Dunne, Compliance & Ethics Professional, Foxes and Henhouses (Aug. 2011).


Tags: DOJInternal InvestigationSEC
Previous Post

Six Firms Partner with IHS Markit to Design Securities Lending and Repo Reporting Solution

Next Post

Resilient: Mike Indursky on Breaking the Right Rules

Jessica Nall

Jessica Nall

Jessica Nall is a partner in Baker & McKenzie's San Francisco and Palo Alto offices. She has extensive experience in conducting internal corporate investigations for companies in the technology, financial services, energy, and health care industries, with a focus on technology companies headquartered in Silicon Valley. Jessica has helped a number of well-known public and private companies navigate high-profile crisis situations involving cutting-edge government enforcement and compliance issues. Jessica brings to the table a wide range of experience in both traditional and emerging white-collar issues, including in international antitrust enforcement, trade secrets theft, false claims act violations, cyber-crime, information security and privacy, crypto-currencies and tokens, ICOs, and block-chain technology.  

Related Posts

doj exterior sign

How to Use the DOJ’s ECCP to Build (or Fix) Your Compliance Program

by Susan Divers
June 5, 2025

Corporate compliance programs face increasing scrutiny as the DOJ applies its evaluation framework across industries and company sizes, from multinational...

disruption concept logs split

The Devil You Know …

by Carrie Pallardy
June 4, 2025

With compliance processes driven largely by regulatory requirements, the financial services sector could be forgiven for breathing a sigh of...

doj sign front

Assessing the Business Risks of the Trump Administration’s ‘Total Elimination’ Strategy

by José Cortina and Jennifer Christian
May 20, 2025

As cartels increasingly participate in mainstream economic activities, traditional due diligence practices become inadequate to address new material support risks

doj sign and sculpture

DOJ’s New CEP Proposes Guaranteed Declination for Some Self-Reporters

by Jennifer L. Gaskin
May 13, 2025

The Trump Administration continues reshaping its approach to corporate crime, with the DOJ issuing major revisions of its corporate enforcement...

Next Post
Resilient: Mike Indursky on Breaking the Right Rules

Resilient: Mike Indursky on Breaking the Right Rules

No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy | AI Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Research
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • CCI Magazine
    • Writing for CCI
    • Career Connection
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Library
    • Download Whitepapers & Reports
    • Download eBooks
    • New: Living Your Best Compliance Life by Mary Shirley
    • New: Ethics and Compliance for Humans by Adam Balfour
    • 2021: Raise Your Game, Not Your Voice by Lentini-Walker & Tschida
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
    • Great Women in Compliance
    • Unless: The Podcast (Hemma Lomax)
  • Research
  • Webinars
  • Events
  • Subscribe

© 2025 Corporate Compliance Insights