In his nineteenth century magnum opus, The Common Law, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes cogently observed that “the life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.” The prescience of Holmes’s words and the collaborative spirit prodded by experience animate the most recent edition of Internal Corporate Investigation, Fourth Edition (Brad D. Brian, Barry F. McNeil, & Lisa J. Demsky eds., 2018). The editors are litigators with substantial experience in internal corporate investigations; and—if their experience in the subject matter was insufficient to please the cognoscenti—their résumés boast law degrees from Harvard and Yale, federal appellate clerkships, and law review membership. Editorial credibility aside, the critical relevance of internal corporate investigations to everyday American life is signified throughout this volume.
Tools and Personnel to Consider
Much like a perfectly detailed law school outline, each of the 15 chapters in this edition has subheadings within each chapter that allow the reader to understand the subject of the chapter in granular detail. Each chapter is written by attorneys who provide in-the-trenches observations and guidance to those seeking particular information on specific issues in internal corporate investigations. In the foreword, Mary Jo White, former U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and former SEC chairman, recommends the book to all lawyers involved in internal corporate investigations. In Chairman White’s words, “[t]he use of internal investigation as a means for companies to deal with potential misconduct has become an essential tenet of corporate best practices in the past 20 years.”
With Chairman White’s words in mind, the reader is then immersed into the substance of internal corporate investigations. Chapters 1 through 5 give an overview of the personnel, tools, and information that are critical for a corporation, regulator, or government to consider when a corporate investigation is imminent or ongoing. Corporate investigations may be either proactive or reactive, we are told, and companies must identify key personnel responsible for aspects of the business who will serve as information resources in the event of an investigation by a regulator or government agency.
On the other hand, regulators and government agencies have tools at their disposal that will facilitate corporate investigations, including, among others, non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), and whistleblower regulations. NPAs and DPAs allow the government to shape corporate behavior by “preventing wrongdoing and correcting improper behavior without the collateral consequences of an indictment or conviction.” Whistleblower statutes provide substantial financial incentives to encourage employees or citizens with personal knowledge to provide critical information that a government or regulator could use to compel a corporation to settle an investigation or else face prosecution or other negative publicity.