Holdsworth & Inkwell
Internal Investigations

Internal Investigations

An independent record, reported to the board exactly as it stands.

Overview

Facts First, Reported Plainly

Internal investigations are structured inquiries conducted by outside counsel into allegations of misconduct within an organization. The work is triggered by whistleblower complaints, regulatory inquiries, audit findings, board concerns, anonymous tips, media reports, or other indicators that something within the organization may require investigation. Internal investigations serve multiple purposes simultaneously: developing the factual record needed for informed decision-making by the board or audit committee, evaluating exposure to civil litigation and regulatory enforcement, identifying remediation steps to prevent recurrence, and supporting decisions about self-disclosure to government agencies where applicable. Independent outside counsel provides the credibility and privilege protections that internal personnel cannot.

Holdsworth & Inkwell conducts internal investigations for boards of directors, audit committees, special committees, general counsel, and senior management. Investigation scope spans alleged misconduct involving financial reporting and accounting (revenue recognition, accounting irregularities, embezzlement), regulatory compliance (FCPA, FDA, healthcare billing compliance, environmental regulations, financial services frameworks), employment-related matters (executive misconduct, harassment and discrimination allegations), cybersecurity incidents and data security breaches, and post-acquisition due diligence following adverse findings. Engagements are accepted under conflict procedures appropriate to a firm with both plaintiff-side and defense-side representations, with case-specific conflict checks at the outset of each engagement.

When You Need This

When an Investigation Becomes Necessary

Some moments inside an organization call for a fact-finding process built to withstand outside scrutiny. The situations below are where that need typically surfaces. Each carries its own timing pressures and stakes for the people involved, apart from the underlying allegation itself. Recognizing the moment early shapes how well the record holds up later.

  • A Whistleblower Complaint Has Been Received

    When a company receives an internal whistleblower complaint, anonymous tip, or hotline report alleging misconduct, the response determines both the immediate exposure and the company's ability to defend against subsequent regulatory or litigation activity. Independent investigation by outside counsel develops the factual record, assesses the credibility of the allegations, evaluates exposure, and provides the board or audit committee with the basis for informed action.

  • A Regulatory Inquiry Is Pending or Threatened

    When a federal or state agency (DOJ, SEC, FTC, state attorneys general, industry regulators) has indicated interest in the company's conduct through informal inquiries, formal subpoenas, civil investigative demands, or media reports of investigations, an internal investigation may be needed both to understand the company's exposure and to support the response to the agency. Internal investigations conducted in this posture must address parallel proceedings considerations from the outset.

  • Board or Audit Committee Concerns Require Investigation

    When the board of directors, audit committee, or other oversight body has concerns about company conduct raised by directors, auditors, internal audit findings, or other sources, an independent investigation provides the basis for board action. Investigations engaged by special committees of independent directors or by audit committees specifically benefit from outside counsel reporting directly to the engaging body rather than through management.

  • Cybersecurity Incident or Data Security Breach

    When a security incident has occurred, internal investigation supports the immediate response, the determination of breach scope and affected parties, the assessment of regulatory notification obligations, the preservation of privileged work product, and the company's defense against subsequent regulatory enforcement and consumer litigation. The work coordinates with cybersecurity vendors, breach notification specialists, and the company's general counsel and IT functions.

  • M&A Diligence Findings or Post-Closing Discoveries

    When pre-acquisition diligence raises concerns about the target company's compliance posture, or when post-closing discoveries reveal potential misconduct at an acquired entity, investigation supports the acquirer's response. Pre-closing investigation may affect deal terms; post-closing investigation supports indemnification claims, self-disclosure decisions, and remediation planning at the acquired entity.

  • Executive or Employee Misconduct Allegations

    Allegations of misconduct against senior executives, board members, or other employees (financial impropriety, harassment, discrimination, conflicts of interest, retaliation) require careful independent investigation. The process must protect against retaliation against complainants, develop the factual record without prejudicing potential disciplinary or termination decisions, and support the company's eventual response including any required disclosures.

Our Approach

A Process Built to Hold Up

An internal investigation earns its credibility through how it is conducted. Holdsworth & Inkwell treats each engagement as a defined sequence, where each stage depends on the discipline of the one before it. What follows sets out how that sequence unfolds for a matter like this one.

  • Engagement Structure and Scope Definition

    Internal investigations begin with engagement structure decisions that affect privilege, reporting lines, and scope. Engagements are typically structured to support attorney-client privilege and work product protection (engagement by special committee or audit committee for matters where management is implicated, engagement by general counsel for matters where management oversight is appropriate). Scope definition addresses the allegations to be investigated, the time period, the relevant business units and personnel, and the deliverables expected at the conclusion of the work.

  • Preservation and Initial Document Collection

    Once engaged, the firm advises on preservation steps to ensure that relevant documents and electronic information are protected throughout the investigation. Initial document collection focuses on the most relevant custodians, communications, and structured data sources. Preservation work is particularly important when potential regulatory or civil litigation exposure is on the horizon, as inadvertent destruction of relevant material can create independent legal exposure.

  • Document Review and Witness Identification

    The firm reviews collected documents to identify the relevant facts, assess the credibility of the allegations, identify witnesses with relevant knowledge, and refine the interview plan. This phase often surfaces additional issues beyond the initial allegations, and the scope of the investigation may be expanded or refined as facts develop. Documentation of investigative steps supports the credibility and defensibility of the investigation if challenged later.

  • Witness Interviews

    Witness interviews are typically conducted with attention to Upjohn warnings (clarifying that the firm represents the company, not the individual), the privilege framework, and the practical realities of obtaining truthful information. Interview order, location, and conduct are carefully considered. The firm prepares interview outlines, conducts the interviews, and documents the substance of each interview for the eventual investigation report.

  • Findings Development and Reporting

    As the investigation develops, the firm synthesizes the evidence into findings and conclusions. Reporting may be oral (to the engaging body, often the audit committee or special committee) or written (formal investigation report). Reports address the factual findings, the assessment of the credibility and weight of the evidence, the exposure analysis, and recommendations for remediation, disciplinary action, self-disclosure, and any other appropriate responses to the findings.

  • Remediation and Follow-Up

    After the investigation concludes, the firm supports implementation of recommendations including personnel actions, policy and procedure changes, disclosure decisions (to regulators, auditors, or counterparties as appropriate), and follow-up monitoring of remediation effectiveness. For matters that proceed to regulatory enforcement or civil litigation, the firm transitions to that work or coordinates with successor counsel as appropriate.

Fee Structure

How We Bill Internal Investigations

Internal investigations are most commonly billed hourly because the scope of the work depends on what the investigation reveals. Initial allegations may lead to broader investigation if facts develop in unexpected directions, while other matters may resolve quickly when the initial allegations are not substantiated. The firm provides budget estimates at the outset of the engagement and updates them as the scope develops.

For investigations with reasonably defined initial scope (a specific allegation, a focused regulatory question, a discrete compliance concern), capped fees or budget-constrained engagements may be appropriate, with expansion if the investigation reveals matters requiring additional work. For matters where the scope cannot be reasonably bounded at the outset (broad whistleblower complaints, complex multi-issue allegations, follow-on investigations expanding from initial findings), straight hourly billing with regular budget updates is typically the most appropriate structure.

Attorneys

Attorneys Who Handle Internal Investigations

Every investigation reports directly to the board, audit committee, or general counsel that engaged it, independent of ordinary management channels. The attorneys below have led engagements of this kind and can speak directly to how a specific investigation would be staffed.

Show
1 / 5
All Attorneys

Practice Areas

Where This Service Applies

An investigation rarely stands alone. It surfaces inside a live business matter, a regulatory posture, or a governance question, each with its own legal exposure. The practice areas below are where that exposure most often takes shape.

Sectors

By Industry

Every investigation sits inside a business, with its own regulatory backdrop, reporting lines, and operational stakes. The sectors below reflect where this work most often originates, each shaping how an investigation is scoped and conducted.

Experience

Investigations We Have Conducted

The matters below involve internal investigations the firm has conducted for boards, audit committees, and general counsel. Each rests on its own facts and posture. Together they show how this work has actually been done: a record to inform judgment, not a preview of what any future matter will bring.

Show
1 / 2

Past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. Every engagement is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances.

All Matters

Resources

Investigations Insight

Internal investigations turn as much on judgment as on procedure: how to scope an inquiry, when to widen it, what a board actually needs before it can act. The analysis below reflects that judgment, drawn from matters where the factual record had to hold up and the practical stakes went well beyond the initial allegation. Read on for our attorneys' thinking on this work.

Publications

Ongoing Series

Internal investigations raise questions that keep developing as enforcement priorities, regulatory expectations, and board practice shift. The series below follow that development over time, returning to the subject as it changes rather than settling for a single point-in-time take.

FAQ

Common Questions About Internal Investigations

Considering an internal investigation raises practical questions before it raises legal ones. The answers below speak to what people considering this specific service most often ask.

All questions

The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.

Why Choose Us

Judgment Under Scrutiny

A board reviewing an investigation's findings is weighing the judgment behind them as much as the facts themselves. That judgment is what follows here.

  • Both Sides of the Table

    Most firms pick a lane and stay in it. We litigate from both sides of complex civil disputes, defending corporate and institutional clients in some matters and pursuing recovery for policyholders, relators, and property owners in others. That range is a working advantage, not a hedge. A firm that only ever defends learns one half of the board; a firm that argues both sides learns how the opposing party builds its case, prices its risk, and decides when to move. When we assess your exposure, we read it the way the other side will, because in other matters, we are the other side. Explore our @practice areas@/practice-areas@ to see where that perspective runs deepest.

  • Trial-Tested, Not Settlement-Default

    Many firms treat trial as a failure of negotiation. We treat readiness for trial as the foundation of every strong defense. A matter that is genuinely prepared to be tried is a matter negotiated from strength, because the other side knows the threat is real. Our litigators build each case as though it will be decided by a jury, which sharpens the strategy whether the resolution ultimately comes at trial, in mediation, or on a dispositive motion. That discipline informs how we staff, how we develop the record, and how we advise you on the choices that matter. Learn how we approach @trial advocacy@/services/trial-advocacy@.

  • One Firm, Four Offices, One Standard

    From our principal office in Sacramento to our teams in Atlanta, Denver, and Austin, Holdsworth & Inkwell operates as a single firm rather than a loose confederation of branches. A client in one region draws on the full bench of the firm, not just the attorneys nearest to them. That structure lets us assemble the right team for a matter regardless of where it sits, and it means our standards for preparation, communication, and judgment travel with the work. See our @office locations@/locations@ and the regions we serve.

  • Continuity from Intake to Appeal

    Description: Litigation that changes hands loses memory. We build matter teams that carry a case from the first assessment through trial and, where necessary, into the appellate courts, so the strategy that shapes early decisions is the same strategy that defends them later. Our @appellate practice@/services/appellate-practice@ works alongside trial teams from the outset, framing and preserving the issues that matter before they are needed, rather than arriving after a verdict to reconstruct what was lost. That continuity protects the coherence of your defense across the full life of a dispute.

  • Industry-Specific Bench Strength

    A defense is only as strong as its grasp of the client's world. Our attorneys bring sustained experience in the sectors where our clients operate, from energy and utilities to healthcare, financial services, government contracting, and manufacturing. That familiarity means we spend less time learning your industry on your dollar and more time applying judgment shaped by matters like yours. Browse the @industries we serve@/sectors@ to see where our experience aligns with your business.

  • Transparent Scoping and Staffing

    Sophisticated clients deserve to know how a matter is staffed, how it is budgeted, and why. We scope engagements deliberately, communicate the reasoning behind our staffing, and keep you informed as a matter develops rather than presenting surprises at billing time. The result is a working relationship built on clarity, where you can plan around our work because you understand it. That transparency is not a courtesy we extend; it is how we think a serious defense should be run.

  • Depth in the Hard Cases

    Some disputes are routine. The ones that bring clients to us usually are not. We have built genuine depth in the areas where the stakes and the complexity are highest, including False Claims Act and qui tam litigation, insurance coverage and recovery, catastrophic wildfire litigation, and large-scale electronic discovery. These are matters that reward sustained focus and punish improvisation, and they are where a firm built for hard problems earns its keep. Read our @insights@/resources@ for how we think about the problems at the edge of our practice.

  • Counsel, Not Just Litigators

    The best outcome is often the dispute that never escalates. Alongside our courtroom work, we counsel clients before litigation begins, helping them assess exposure, preserve their position, and make informed decisions when a problem first surfaces. Our @pre-litigation counseling@/services/pre-litigation-counseling@ brings the same defensive judgment to the choices that precede a filing as we bring to the courtroom, because the value of a defense firm is measured as much by the disputes it helps you avoid as the ones it wins.

A direct line to investigation counsel.

Bring Us the Facts

You have what you need to weigh whether this calls for independent investigation. Contact us to talk through the allegations and how we would approach them.

Contact Us