Most every audit committee member, in-house counsel, other board member, CEO, CFO, risk officer, and chief internal auditor will at some time consider whether an accounting related investigation that is being done internally should be taken outside. The decision to stay inside or to go outside isn’t necessarily clear, and there certainly could be differing opinions depending on the facts and circumstances of the situation. The following isn’t a formal or legal discussion, but below are at least some of the factors that I would consider and that you might consider. Every situation is different at least to some extent.
- Is there really the expertise in-house to do the investigation? This is an important consideration that I will have more to say about in other posts – however, consider whether it is important for the primary investigator to not only have a legal background in the subject matter, but also accounting or auditing backgrounds. Whereas an accounting or auditing firm might also be retained to assist with the investigation, you might well also find that it would be helpful for the primary investigator to be able to understand the accounting, internal control and auditing or auditor issues, and that the primary investigator might need those backgrounds to better lead the investigation and make decisions or evaluations.
- Is there really the time availability to handle the investigation in-house?
- Is the dollar amount involved sufficiently large to warrant going outside for the investigation?
- Are the qualitative natures of the issues sufficiently important to warrant going outside, such as because of possible public relations, ethics, fraud, or other considerations?
- Does it warrant going outside because of the possible people who might be interviewed, questioned or involved including their office or stature in the organization, and their relationships with the people who are investigating, the board, the audit committee, the executive officers and other people?
- For whatever reasons, is it warranted or required that the investigation be independent, or more independent in nature.
- If the initial investigation began in-house (which is entirely possible), has it for whatever reason now become more prudent to go outside?
That’s it for now. Just some thoughts. I’m sure that you can come up with additional thoughts – the above discussion isn’t all encompassing.
Dave Tate, Esq. (San Francisco and California)