Cochran/West: How to advise employees about government investigators

May 21, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Robert Cochran and Lu Carole West

cochran-robert.jpg Cochran

In-house attorneys advise employees on many topics, but do the employees of your company know what to do during a government investigation? Government investigations are a fact of life in today’s business world, especially in highly regulated industries such as health care, securities and finance. Once a corporation becomes aware of an investigation or believes an investigation is imminent, counsel should provide the affected employees with some practical advice on how to respond to investigators who request interviews of the employees.

west-lu.jpg West

The government will often begin an investigation by calling or making unannounced visits to employees and managers. Investigators like to make unexpected calls or unannounced visits because they may believe the element of surprise will yield a more forthcoming response from a startled individual. These unannounced visits are likely to occur at an employee’s home. Many companies decide to send a memorandum to all affected personnel explaining, among other things, the nature of the investigation and the employees’ rights and obligations if approached by investigators for interviews.

The company will want to be very careful in how it instructs employees and managers, so as not to create an appearance of trying to obstruct or interfere with an investigation. Consulting with counsel will be important in providing the right guidance. However, some general principles related to employee rights and responsibilities include:

1. Government investigators have the right to contact you and to request an interview of you. However, you have no obligation to talk to investigators. Indeed, you have the absolute right to refuse to be interviewed. The decision to speak with an investigator is entirely up to you.

2. If you agree to an interview, you may terminate the interview at any time and you may refuse to answer any question posed to you.

3. You have the right to consult with an attorney before every conversation with government investigators. You are also entitled to have an attorney with you during any conversations you may have with an investigator.

4. If you agree to an interview, you must provide complete and truthful information in response to any questions you choose to answer. Lying to investigators is a crime.

5. If you do not want to be interviewed, you should politely, but firmly decline the investigator’s request.

6. Do not attempt to hide evidence by altering, destroying, tampering, deleting or discarding any documents or records, including electronic information.

7. Do not attempt to interfere with the government’s investigation.

8. Regardless of your decision, if an investigator contacts you it is helpful if you immediately contact your supervisor or legal counsel. This will help your employer ensure that it complies with any obligation it may have to preserve relevant evidence. You have every right to tell your employer about the government contact. The investigator may request or suggest that you keep the contact confidential but there is no law that would prevent you from disclosing the interview to your employer.

The time to consider training or education is before government investigators knock on your employees’ doors. While the experience is never easy, preparing your employees in advance can help avoid confusion and uncertainty.•


Robert Cochran and Lu Carole West are attorneys with Ice Miller LLP. They assist clients in regulated industries such as health care, securities and finance with government investigations, government enforcement, corporate compliance, and internal investigations. They can be reached at or The opinions expressed are those of the authors.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.