Source: https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/benchmarking/the-practitioner%E2%80%99s-guide-to-global-investigations-third-edition/1179085/witness-interviews-in-internal-investigations-the-us-perspective
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:39:58+00:00

Document:
Witness interviews form an integral part of most investigations, whether internal or regulator-facing, and an interviewer’s ability to extract facts from witnesses is a critical part of any successful investigation. The purpose of witness interviews is multi-faceted but generally includes scoping the investigation, understanding the facts and issues at play, and assessing the accountability of individuals and possible defences for the company and its employees. Broadly speaking, witness interviews in internal investigations generally consist of preliminary interviews with individuals who are able to provide background facts and identify likely sources of information and documents, and substantive interviews focused on the key factual issues. This chapter will discuss issues to be considered when preparing for and conducting witness interviews in the United States or in relation to a US internal investigation.
Witness interviews may be conducted in the United States without consulting government authorities; however, when US-related investigations require interviewing witnesses in non-US jurisdictions, the key issues may include whether it is permissible under local laws to conduct witness interviews and whether restrictions or regulations apply to any interviews that are conducted. Labour laws and employment-context data protection laws may limit the investigation team’s ability to conduct witness interviews in some jurisdictions. For example, labour laws in some jurisdictions may require consulting with local employee representatives, including union committees or works councils, before initiating witness interviews. Local laws may also dictate how counsel is able to interact with employees who have retained independent legal counsel.
US employment agreements and corporate policies typically obligate employees to co-operate with a company’s investigations, and employees may face disciplinary action, including potential termination, for failing to co-operate. Although employees in the United States are free to obtain independent legal advice in the face of a potential interview, they are nonetheless obliged to co-operate with their employer and its counsel. Indeed, a recent appellate court decision affirmed an employer’s right to terminate an employee for refusing to co-operate with an internal investigation. This means companies have broad authority to dictate when and where interviews take place and to impose rules governing the attendance and participation of an employee’s counsel. Depending on the situation, companies may provide legal representation for employees to ensure they have fully considered their legal exposure and are well prepared for interviews. A company may be required to advance legal fees and expenses to certain of its employees depending on the laws in a company’s state of incorporation and its own by-laws or internal policies.
Investigators should begin identifying potential interviewees during the early stages of an investigation while document collection and review is under way. It may be beneficial to include lower-level employees in the interview plan because they may have basic factual information or insight into systems and controls that can provide context for the investigation. The initial list of interviewees need not be exhaustive as the first few preliminary interviews are likely to generate additional witness names.
Third-party witnesses, such as former employees, customers or contractors are not likely to be bound by the same confidentiality obligations as company personnel and may refuse to co-operate with the investigation unless they are contractually compelled to do so. With respect to former employees, interviewers should consider whether the employee left the company on unfavourable terms or otherwise has an incentive to disclose the existence of the investigation to other parties, including competitors, the media or enforcement authorities.
When sequencing interviews, investigators often start with scoping interviews of individuals who have relevant background knowledge, who can explain relevant corporate processes and practices, and who can identify key personnel who may be involved in the allegations. Thereafter, investigators typically interview fact witnesses in ascending order of involvement in the alleged misconduct. However, investigators may consider interviewing the target or targets of the allegations early in the interview process if there is a high risk that other interviewees may tip them off, if they appear likely to leave the company in the short term or if the nature and timing of the investigation call for obtaining such information quickly.
If there is an identified whistleblower, an effort should be made to interview that person at the outset of the investigation to better understand the allegations, obtain key documentation and establish a dialogue. Such early discussions should be viewed as an opportunity to obtain whatever relevant information the whistleblower has and to demonstrate the company’s commitment to investigating the allegations.
When planning for an interview, investigators should carefully review relevant documents and prior witness statements. Interviewers should also determine which documents to question witnesses about and in what order. Typically, witnesses should be shown only emails or parts of email chains where they are recipients, senders or otherwise copied on the chain to preserve the confidentiality of the communications. In some circumstances, it may be strategically beneficial to share a general interview agenda and documents to be discussed with the interviewees in advance of the interview. However, this practice may detract from the interviewer’s flexibility to raise and explore new issues during the interview and increases the risk the interviewee will tip off other key witnesses. In addition, this method gives witnesses ample opportunity to prepare their version of the story and removes any element of surprise that may help investigators uncover the facts. If, however, the subject matter of the investigation is already public or the witness is aware of the existence of the investigation, pre-interview review of documents to be discussed during the interview, in some instances, can be efficient.
Interviews are typically conducted by an attorney lead interviewer and a note-taker. Company management or in-house counsel may also participate in the interview if their participation is likely to encourage the witness to be more co-operative. However, it is not unusual for investigative counsel to request that no one from the company attend the interview to avoid the appearance of intimidating the witnesses. Certain third parties may also attend the interview where appropriate, such as accounting or forensic consultants retained by external counsel pursuant to a Kovel agreement, which ensures that information shared between the attorney and the consultant does not cause a waiver of the attorney–client privilege. The attendance of third parties outside this construct may, however, cause waiver of the privilege.
Non-attorneys, such as in-house auditors or investigators, may also conduct witness interviews; however, non-attorneys must act under the direction and instruction of in-house or external legal counsel to preserve the attorney–client privilege applicable to investigations performed in connection with providing legal advice to the company. Case law in the United States can vary significantly from court to court with respect to the application of the attorney–client privilege and the work-product doctrine to non-attorney communications and work-product. For example, some courts have taken a broad view of the attorney–client privilege, extending it to any ‘communications intended to keep the attorney apprised of business matters’ if those communications ‘embody an implied request for legal advice based thereon.’ Other courts have adopted a narrower interpretation. They have insisted on identifying a single primary purpose for any analysis of attorney–client privilege. ‘Where business and legal advice are intertwined, the legal advice must predominate for the communication to be protected.’ Accordingly, when non-attorneys conduct witness interviews, companies should carefully consider whether the interviews and subsequent work-product are likely to be protected by the attorney–client privilege or the work-product doctrine.
Typically, witness interviews are not tape-recorded to avoid potential confidentiality and privilege issues. Instead, interviewers should be accompanied by a note-taker who takes careful notes and subsequently prepares a memorandum that summarises what was learned during the interview. The interview memorandum should include the interviewers’ observations and impressions about the witness’s statements and credibility. Interview memoranda that contain a verbatim account of the interview without the mental impressions of counsel are less likely to be protected by the attorney work-product doctrine, which protects an attorney’s mental impressions and strategic preparation and not a witness’s factual statements. Even so, under certain circumstances, so-called ‘fact work-product’ (as distinct from ‘opinion work-product’) may be entitled to protection to the extent the fact work-product reflects the thought processes of counsel.
In parallel cross-border investigations or prosecutions, the application of the attorney–client privilege or the work-product doctrine may differ. For example, Germany’s constitutional court recently declined to recognise the attorney–client privilege where external counsel, based in the United States, was retained solely to conduct an internal investigation and not for the purposes of criminal defence.
Before any substantive questioning begins, interviewers should introduce themselves to the witness and provide a background on the general subject matter of the investigation. During this introduction, a lawyer interviewing witnesses in the United States or witnesses connected to an actual or potential proceeding in the United States should always provide an Upjohn warning.
In summary, an Upjohn warning should inform the interviewee of the following: that the interviewers have been retained by the company (or other engaging entity such as the audit committee) to provide legal advice to the company in connection with the matter under investigation and do not represent the witness individually; that the interviewers are gathering facts related to the topic of the investigation for the purpose of providing legal advice to the company; that the investigation is protected by the attorney–client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine; that the witness should keep the conversation confidential to preserve these privileges by not disclosing the substance of the interview to any third party, whether inside or outside the company; that the privilege belongs to the company; and that the company can waive the privilege at any time and decide to disclose the privileged information to third parties without the consent of the interviewee.
The note-taker should carefully document the Upjohn warning and related statements given to the witness in both the interview notes and the interview memorandum. Counsel may consider using a written Upjohn warning to reduce the risk of later disputes; however, this is not a common practice as a written warning may have a chilling effect on the witness. Counsel should ensure that interviewees acknowledge that they understand what has been explained to them during the Upjohn warning.
Importantly, the Upjohn warning informs a witness that no personal attorney–client relationship exists between the interviewer and the witness. This distinction is important to avoid potential conflict of interest issues that may arise if the witness later claims that the interview created an attorney–client relationship resulting in a privilege that belongs to the witness. In some instances, it may be appropriate to further advise interviewees in an internal investigation about the possibility that false statements made in interviews with the company’s counsel could result in obstruction-of-justice charges.
Although Upjohn is not authoritative law outside the United States, providing an Upjohn warning at the start of witness interviews remains a best practice globally. For example, the Paris Bar Council has issued guidance instructing French counsel to inform interview witnesses before any interview that (1) the external counsel represents the legal entity, not the witness or any other individual and (2) the discussion is covered by the ‘client–attorney privilege’, which belongs exclusively to the legal entity, as opposed to the individual, and means that the entity can choose to share the substance of the interview with third parties, including regulators or prosecutors.
I understand that in order to protect the integrity of this review, I am prohibited from discussing any particulars regarding this interview and the subject matter discussed during the interview, without prior authorization of the Law Department. I understand that unauthorized disclosure of information may be grounds for disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
The SEC held that this provision violated SEC Rule 21F-17, which prohibits a company from taking ‘any action to impede a whistleblower from communicating directly’ with the SEC about a securities violation, ‘including enforcing, or threatening to enforce, a confidentiality agreement’. It was irrelevant to the SEC’s determination that it was unaware of any instance in which the confidentiality statement prevented any employee from reporting a possible securities law violation to the SEC or that it was unaware of any instance in which the company sought to enforce the confidentiality statement to prevent an employee from reporting an alleged violation. The cease-and-desist order made clear that the confidentiality statement alone constituted a violation of Rule 21F-17. As a consequence, the company agreed to pay a US$130,000 fine and it amended its confidentiality agreements to inform employees that nothing in the company’s confidentiality agreements prohibits them from reporting possible violations of laws or regulations.
I understand and acknowledge that notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, I am not prohibited or in any way restricted from reporting possible violations of law to a governmental agency or entity, and I am not required to inform the Company if I make such reports.
When non-attorneys conduct witness interviews, those interviews are not, generally speaking, privileged. Some legal precedent in the United States, however, suggests that witness interviews conducted by non-attorneys may be protected by the attorney–client privilege where the interviews were authorised by and conducted under the direction of the company’s in-house or external counsel. Ideally, any witness interview would be conducted directly by an in-house or outside lawyer. If, however, in-house counsel direct non-attorneys to conduct witness interviews, they should ensure that they closely supervise the non-attorneys’ activities and document that their activities are performed for the purpose of providing legal advice to the company. In-house counsel should become involved early in the assessment and investigation of allegations to define the scope of the investigation and provide direction on the interviews and document reviews to be conducted.
Even interviews by in-house counsel may be deemed non-privileged if such counsel are viewed as acting in a business rather than a legal capacity. Additionally, some US courts have not extended the attorney–client privilege to communications with non-US in-house counsel located in jurisdictions that do not require them to be licensed attorneys, or where local laws do not apply the attorney–client privilege to such communications.
When feasible and appropriate, a company should consider using external counsel to direct an investigation and conduct witness interviews. There is a greater likelihood of maintaining privilege protections in interviews conducted by external counsel because they are more likely to be viewed by courts as conducting an investigation for the primary purpose of providing legal advice, as opposed to in-house counsel, who often operate in a business capacity in their daily functions.
It is common for witnesses to ask questions about the Upjohn warning, including whether they should retain a lawyer, whether they will be fired or disciplined if they do not co-operate and whether their employer will be informed of what they say during their interviews. Interviewers should anticipate such questions and consult with in-house counsel in advance of the interviews to develop a strategy for addressing these issues. In response to these questions, interviewers should explain that the employee is free to obtain personal legal advice but that the interviewer cannot advise the employee on whether to retain a lawyer since the interviewer does not represent the employee. Interviewers should also be prepared to explain the company’s policy on co-operation with internal investigations if the policy requires employees to co-operate. Lastly, where employees ask whether their employer will be informed, interviewers should explain that, as attorneys for the company, they are required to report their findings to the client. Interviewers should also be careful to explain that the information gathered during the interviews belongs to the company and can be shared by the company with third parties such as enforcement authorities.
Witnesses may also ask to obtain, review or revise any interview notes or memoranda summarising the interview, and local law in some jurisdictions outside the United States may require the interviewers to produce this information. Under US law, companies generally are not required to provide interviewees with copies of interview memoranda summarising their interview. Interviewees also do not have a right to revise or correct interview notes.
If interviewees request some form of employment or legal protection before agreeing to be interviewed, companies should consider the applicability of local laws, which may curb a company’s ability to grant protection or provide assurance that the interviewees will not be dismissed. Companies should not agree that an interviewee’s conduct or statements will not be reported to government authorities when deemed appropriate by the company. Neither should a company agree to give protection from disciplinary protection for conduct it does not know about or in relation to facts not yet fully investigated or understood.
Counsel for employees involved in government investigations may also seek to enter into a joint defence or common interest agreement with counsel for the company or other employees. Such agreements may help to protect information that counsel choose to communicate with each other and prevent disclosure of communications among the parties to the agreement.
Witnesses may also seek to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to answer certain questions. In the United States, the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination generally does not apply in employee interviews conducted by a private employer. A private employer is seen as a non-state actor when the interview is conducted in pursuit of the employer’s own duties or interests, and any sanction resulting from an employee’s failure to sit for the interview is imposed without government pressure. This means an employer can take disciplinary action against an at-will employee for refusing to co-operate with an internal investigation. However, in some jurisdictions outside the United States, employees may refuse to respond to questions if they believe the answers would incriminate them.
Protection for potential defendants may also be subject to differences in substantive laws and jurisdictional limitations. For example, in the recent United States v. Allen case, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the convictions of two UK-based traders, Anthony Allen and Paul Conti, charged with manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) because the US government sought to use their testimony provided in compelled interviews with the UK Financial Conduct Authority in the US criminal case. In this case, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) had carried out independent investigations of the LIBOR submissions process at Rabobank, where Allen and Conti worked. The FCA conducted compelled interviews of Allen and Conti, and a third trader without the DOJ’s involvement. Later, the FCA sent transcripts of the interviews to the third trader’s attorney. The third trader reviewed the testimony and later became a co-operating witness in the DOJ’s investigation. He told the DOJ a different story from the one he had previously told his FCA interviewers. The DOJ sought to rely on the third trader’s account to indict Allen and Conti. On appeal, the Second Circuit dismissed Allen and Conti’s convictions and remanded the case with instruction to dismiss their indictments. The court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies in American courtrooms ‘even when the defendant’s testimony was compelled by foreign officials.’ The court further emphasised that US authorities should ensure careful international coordination in multi-jurisdictional investigations to help avoid Fifth Amendment issues.
After the interviewers have ensured the witness understands the implications of the Upjohn warning, interviewers may begin an interview by asking about the witness’s background and job responsibilities. In most cases, interviewers should take care to ask questions in a civil, courteous and non-threatening manner to maximise the chances of obtaining full co-operation and candour from the witness.
To best determine what the witness knows about the subject matters at issue in the investigation, it may be helpful to start the interview by asking open-ended questions regarding general issues related to the investigation. Subsequently, the interviewer can drill down on each topic and reference documents to develop the facts, clarify ambiguities or contradictions, or refresh the witness’s recollection. During the interview, interviewers should also ask questions to identify additional witnesses with relevant knowledge.
At the end of the interview, interviewers should reiterate the importance of keeping the interview confidential. Interviewers may also ask the witness to contact the interviewer should they later remember any additional information.
Where there is a risk of losing the witness’s co-operation in the future, interviewers may consider asking the witness to sign a written statement.
When interviewing employees abroad, investigators should determine whether local laws permit witness interviews; whether interviewees have a right to legal or union representation or to refuse to co-operate with an internal investigation; whether a labour union must be notified; and whether employees have any procedural rights during internal investigations, including whether they can have access to interview topics in advance or whether they can review and revise interview notes and memoranda subsequent to the interview. Finally, where an investigation may lead to potential discipline of employees, investigators should consult with local employment counsel to ensure that information gathered at interviews can be used in a disciplinary hearing. Local employment and labour laws will also need to be carefully considered before disciplinary actions are taken.
Investigators should pay particular attention to local data protection and privacy laws, which may have a significant impact on their ability to collect and review documents and to interview witnesses. The European Union’s recently enacted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for instance, should be taken into account when the data of EU citizens must be collected, processed, used or transferred as part of an internal investigation. The EU has long recognised a fundamental right to privacy in one’s personal information, and the GDPR strengthens these protections by including heightened transparency and consent requirements. For example, investigators may need to obtain an employee’s consent before collecting and reviewing any documents, which may impact the investigators’ ability to collect documents before an investigation target is tipped off. Investigators should also keep in mind that even in situations where processing and reviewing personal data, such as emails, is permitted, data may only be transmitted to EU Member States, other specifically designated countries or countries that can demonstrate an adequate level of protection, and registered and approved companies.
1 Keith Krakaur and Ryan Junck are partners at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Skadden associate Bora Rawcliffe in the preparation of this chapter.
2 See Gilman v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., No. 15-0603-cv(L) (2d Cir. 2016) (holding that the employer was presumptively entitled to seek information from its own employees about suspicions of on-the job criminal conduct).
3 See United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2d Cir. 1961) (holding that external counsel may engage non-attorney professionals to assist in the conduct of investigations, and may share privileged information with them without waiving the attorney–client privilege as long as the communications are made in confidence for the purpose of providing legal advice to the client).
5 Coleman v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. 106 F.R.D. 201, 206 (D.D.C. 1985); In re Trans-Industries, Inc., Case No.: 1:10 MC 101, 2011 WL 1130431, *3 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (‘In situations where there is mixed legal-business advice, the court must determine whether the predominant nature of the consultation was legal or business-oriented.’).
6 See Murphy v. Kmart Corp. 259 F.R.D. 421 (D.S.D. 2009).
7 BVerfG, 2 BvR 1287/17, 27 June 2018, https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2018/06/rk20180627_2bvr128717.html.
8 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981).
9 15 U.S.C. § 78o.
(SEC 1 April 2015), available at www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2015/34-74619.pdf.
11 Specifically, the court found a violation of SEC Rule 21F-17 (‘Staff communications with individuals reporting possible securities law violations’). See Order Instituting Cease-And-Desist Proceedings, In the Matter of BlackRock, Inc., 3-17786 (SEC 17 January 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/34-79804.pdf.
12 Order Instituting Cease-And-Desist Proceedings, In the Matter of BlackRock, Inc., 3-17786 (SEC 17 January 2017), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/34-79804.pdf.
15 See, e.g., Wultz v. Bank of China, 304 F.R.D. 384, 390-94 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
16 In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 796 F.3d 137, 149 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
17 See Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, 254 F.R.D. 204, 209-10 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
18 See, e.g., Wultz, 304 F.R.D. 384 (finding that communications with Chinese in-house counsel who are not required to be licensed to practise law were not privileged even where the company had retained external counsel because there was no evidence that any external US counsel actually directed or was otherwise consulted for legal advice regarding the investigation).
19 See Robinson v. Time Warner, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 144 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
20 United States v. Allen, Nos. 16-898, 16-939, at 38 (2d. Cir. 19 July 2017).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.