ILNews

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 robert.cochran@icemiller.com or lucarole.west@icemiller.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT