- Make Suppression Rules TemporaryPosted 4 hours ago
- Equifax Report Referenced at Congressional HearingPosted 4 hours ago
- The Tangle Of Litigation Likely To Follow Boeing CrashesPosted 1 day ago
- One Way To Sabotage Your Own Insurance ClaimPosted 4 days ago
- As Robotics and AI Transform Work, Legal Must Play Key RolePosted 4 days ago
- Breaking Up Big Tech Brit StylePosted 5 days ago
Conducting Privileged Internal Investigations
Executive Summary of an article written by
Todd Presnell, Bradley
In-house attorneys receiving a whistleblower complaint, government inquiry or other alert must decide whether and how to conduct an internal investigation. If they choose to do it in-house, they must manage many complex issues to ensure that the investigation and its results remain protected from discovery in subsequent litigation. The legal advice component is especially troublesome for in-house lawyers. Courts recognize that in-house lawyers communicate about business-related, as well as legal, issues, and will not assume that a communication involves legal issues simply because an in-house lawyer is present. The legal advice presumption afforded outside counsel may persuade the in-house lawyer to retain a law firm to conduct the investigation. But not every whistleblower complaint or government subpoena necessitates the retention of outside investigation counsel.
When a company determines to keep the investigation in-house, its legal department must ensure that it conducts the investigation in a privileged manner. If delegating the investigation to non-lawyers, prepare a memorandum that emphasizes that the investigation is confidential and for legal advice purposes. Instruct and train non-lawyer investigators on how to conduct privileged interviews.
Another consideration is whether the privilege protects communications between in-house lawyers or their designees who interview consultants or third-party contractors during an investigation. Although not addressed in every jurisdiction, the privilege should cover these communications under the functional-equivalent doctrine, which holds that the privilege applies to third-party communications if the third party was acting as the functional equivalent of an employee.Read the full article at:
Today’s General Counsel