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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT