Corporate crime allegations often arise from within a company itself — a regulator's inquiry, an internal audit finding, or a whistleblower report — and by the time a formal criminal investigation begins, the underlying facts are frequently already partly documented, which makes early defense involvement particularly valuable. Bribery and money laundering allegations specifically follow the specialized track under our bribery & money laundering practice.
These matters often involve multiple potentially exposed individuals within the same company, which raises its own considerations around separate representation and conflicting interests that need to be identified early.
This practice supports both individual executives or employees facing personal exposure and companies managing a broader corporate investigation, including coordinating an internal investigation in a way that protects the company's position if the matter proceeds to formal charges.
Where multiple individuals within the same company have potentially conflicting interests, we advise on the need for separate representation early, rather than after a conflict has already caused a problem. Shareholder fallout from the same underlying conduct is often litigated in parallel under partner & shareholder disputes.
A common and consequential misunderstanding in internal investigations is assuming that a lawyer retained by the company, and appearing genuinely helpful and professional during an interview, is representing the individual employee's personal interests — when in fact that lawyer's client and duty of loyalty run to the company itself, which may have interests that diverge meaningfully from any individual employee's once the investigation's findings start to take shape.
We advise individuals in this exact situation to seek independent counsel as soon as they realize their personal exposure might diverge from the company's interests, since clarity on whose interests are actually being represented is one of the most consequential things to understand early in any internal investigation.
Decisions made at the very start of an internal investigation — whether it's structured to preserve legal privilege, how interviews are documented, whether findings are shared informally or through carefully controlled channels — can determine what becomes discoverable if the matter later proceeds to a formal criminal investigation, making these early structural choices nearly as consequential as the substantive findings themselves.
We help companies structure internal investigations with these downstream consequences in mind from the outset, rather than only considering them once a formal investigation has already begun and some of these foundational choices can no longer be revisited. The preventive architecture — controls, delegation frameworks, documented decision-making — is built through our corporate governance & compliance practice.
Not typically in the same matter where interests may conflict — we advise on when separate representation is needed and can help coordinate that early.
Often yes — a well-conducted internal investigation can meaningfully shape how a later formal investigation unfolds. We can advise on how to structure one properly.
Get independent legal advice promptly, particularly if your interests might diverge from the company's. Early clarity on your specific position matters.
Not necessarily, and often not at all — company counsel's duty runs to the company itself, so if your interests could diverge, independent personal counsel is worth seeking as early as possible.
Early choices about privilege and documentation can determine what becomes discoverable later if a formal investigation follows, making these structural decisions nearly as important as the investigation's actual findings.
This is exactly the kind of question worth raising with independent counsel early — a brief, confidential conversation can clarify whether your position genuinely diverges from the company's before it becomes a larger problem.
Expert Riyadh