Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Over the past 10 years, government investigations have become increasingly sophisticated in analyzing electronically stored information (ESI). Federal executive departments and agencies have made substantial investments in advanced analytical systems that help investigators and prosecutors filter voluminous amounts of incoming ESI to quickly focus on items of particular interest and relevance to an investigation. These systems, once almost magical in the speed and depth of their analysis, are now commonplace.
Companies and organizations responding to Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) and other government requests for information must recognize that the information provided will be analyzed using these powerful tools. Significant documents in a voluminous production that previously might have been overlooked will now likely be discovered. Even more importantly, prosecutorial data analysis may reveal documents to the investigators that, in the absence of similar capabilities, a target company may not be aware it was producing.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.