In Depth

5 Things About Corporate Investigations That Won't Change...

...As a Result of the Hewlett-Packard Pretexting Scandal

By Sarah D. Scalet

firm, who spoke on condition that he not be identified. "Normally, the heart of the internal investigation

work we do is, the company is giving you access to e-mail systems and documents and access to

employees as well, usually who are required to cooperate with you on the pain of being fired if they

don't."

By their very nature, law firms collect evidence to be used in court. Investigations firms, on the other

hand, may want information merely to put them on the right trail, whether it's permissible as evidence

or not. Either way, though, there's a huge gray area of things that can be done legally but are widely

considered unethical—and neither group has the monopoly on ethics. "Being an attorney makes

you no more ethical than anybody else in the investigations business," Wipprecht quips.

There is one big difference, however. Investigations done by law firms are decidedly more expensive

than ones done by investigative firms. Debevoise & Plimpton's investigation into Vioxx reportedly

took 20 months and cost $21 million. If companies do turn increasingly to law firms, it will be because

they have other ways to justify the cost.

And what would that be? "Law firms have always been used principally to make sure the information

gathered is covered by attorney-client privilege," Becker says.

It's not a foolproof strategy, though. That HP memo we recounted earlier? Each and every page of it

carried a stern warning: "Attorney-Client Privileged."

Reality check: Investigations done by law firms are too expensive to justify just for the investigation's

sake.

Reach Senior Editor Sarah D. Scalet at sscalet@cxo.com.

em>