Internal Investigations
A whistleblower report, a harassment or discrimination complaint, an anonymous hotline tip, or a board member’s question about a senior executive’s conduct all start the same way: someone has to find out what actually happened before the company can decide what to do next.
Ward and Smith’s Internal Investigations team handles that work for clients across North Carolina and South Carolina, and seven of the attorneys on the team, Justin Hill, X. Lightfoot, Emily Massey, Will Oden, Grant Osborne, Hayley Wells, and Devon Williams, are North Carolina Board Certified Specialists in Employment Law. Devon Williams is also one of the firm’s two Co-Managing Directors.
Most internal investigations start before anyone outside the company knows there is a problem, and how the first week is handled usually determines whether the matter stays internal or becomes something bigger. Preserving the wrong documents, interviewing the wrong people first, or waiting too long to involve counsel can undermine attorney-client privilege and make a manageable problem considerably harder to manage.
Most workplace investigations, whether triggered by a harassment complaint, a discrimination allegation, or a report of financial misconduct by an employee, eventually touch employment law. Seven of this team’s attorneys hold the North Carolina State Bar’s Board Certified Specialist credential in Employment Law, which the Bar grants only after a demonstrated level of experience in the field and a peer review process. That depth means the attorneys running an investigation already know how the findings will hold up if the matter later becomes an EEOC charge, a wrongful termination claim, or litigation.
What We Handle
Investigating What Happened
- Developing investigation scope and methodology
- Preserving relevant documents and electronic data
- Conducting witness interviews
- Analyzing financial records and business transactions
- Preparing investigation reports
- Recommending corrective actions
Workplace and Pre-Charge Investigations
- Harassment and discrimination complaint investigations
- Investigations conducted before an EEOC or state agency charge is filed
- Retaliation complaint investigations
- Executive and senior leader conduct investigations
- Code of conduct and anti-harassment policy violation investigations
Deciding What Happens Next
When the facts point toward possible government exposure, this team works directly with Ward and Smith’s White Collar Defense and Government Investigations Practice Group, led by Dan Becker, to evaluate whether and how to bring the matter to a regulator’s attention. See Ward and Smith’s White Collar Defense and Government Investigations page for how that process works from the government-facing side. Other decisions that follow from an investigation’s findings include:
- Assessing potential legal exposure and mitigation strategies
- Advising on personnel actions and disciplinary measures
- Managing shareholder and stakeholder communications
- Coordinating with auditors and other external advisors
Building Compliance Programs
- Assessing industry-specific risks and regulatory requirements
- Designing policies, procedures, and reporting channels
- Building training for executives, managers, and employees
- Designing board-level training on fiduciary duties and oversight obligations
- Implementing monitoring and testing procedures
Clients We Serve
Most of this team’s clients are companies and boards that need an independent, privileged review of something a whistleblower, an employee, or an auditor has already flagged, often working through an audit committee or a special committee set up specifically to oversee the review.
Many of those same clients come back later for a different reason: building or updating a compliance program before the next problem surfaces rather than after.
That work spans healthcare providers, financial institutions, government contractors, and manufacturers, each with its own regulatory backdrop shaping what the program needs to cover.
A large share of this team’s work is workplace investigations specifically: employers facing a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation complaint, or another workplace misconduct allegation, who need an independent investigation conducted well before any EEOC or state agency charge is filed.
That timing matters.
An investigation done early and done right is often the strongest evidence an employer has if the complaint becomes a charge later.
Why Ward and Smith
Seven attorneys on this team, Justin Hill, X. Lightfoot, Emily Massey, Will Oden, Grant Osborne, Hayley Wells, and Devon Williams, hold North Carolina Board Certified Specialist credentials in Employment Law, and Chris Edwards is a North Carolina Board Certified Specialist in Appellate Practice. Devon Williams is also one of Ward and Smith’s two Co-Managing Directors. Avery Locklear and Genesis Torres round out the team. When an internal investigation’s findings end up in an EEOC charge, a licensing board appeal, or litigation, the attorneys who ran the investigation and the attorneys who handle the appeal are already on the same team.
Related Practices
We are your established legal network with offices in Asheville, Greenville, New Bern, Raleigh, and Wilmington, NC, and Columbia, SC.
Frequently Asked Questions
An internal investigation is a confidential review of alleged misconduct, typically led or directly supervised by counsel so that the review is protected by attorney-client privilege. Companies commonly conduct one after a whistleblower report, an audit finding, a government inquiry, or a credible allegation of fraud, harassment, discrimination, or another violation of law. A well-run investigation identifies the facts, addresses the underlying problem, and gives the company a documented basis to present to a regulator or a court if the matter becomes public later.
Yes. An employer who investigates a harassment, discrimination, or retaliation complaint promptly and thoroughly, before any charge is filed, is in a far better position if the complaint later becomes an EEOC charge or a lawsuit. The EEOC and courts both look at how seriously and how quickly an employer responded. A pre-charge investigation conducted with the right documentation can resolve the complaint internally, correct the underlying problem, and give the company its strongest evidence if the matter proceeds further.
Either can work, but using outside counsel to lead or directly supervise the investigation is usually the better choice when the allegations involve a senior executive, when the findings could create government exposure, or when the company needs the investigation’s findings and communications protected by attorney-client privilege. An investigation run entirely inside the company by non-lawyers generally is not privileged, which means the resulting report and interview notes could be discoverable later in litigation or a government inquiry.
As soon as a company has reason to believe litigation or a government inquiry is possible, it should issue a litigation hold covering emails, text messages, shared drives, and any other place relevant information might exist, and suspend any automatic deletion policies that would otherwise erase that information. Courts and regulators can draw an adverse inference, or impose sanctions, against a company that destroys evidence after the duty to preserve has attached, even when the destruction was routine rather than intentional.
When the facts an internal investigation turns up could create exposure with a regulator or a prosecutor, such as evidence of bribery, securities fraud, or a false claim to the government, this team brings in Ward and Smith’s White Collar Defense and Government Investigations Practice Group, led by Dan Becker, to evaluate whether to self-report and to manage the government-facing side of the response. The investigation does not stop or restart with a new law firm; the same privilege and the same institutional knowledge carry forward.
An effective compliance program starts with an honest assessment of where the company’s specific risks actually are, not a generic policy template. From there, it needs clear reporting channels that employees will actually use, training that reaches executives, managers, and employees with content relevant to their roles, and a monitoring and testing process that catches problems before a regulator does. A program that exists only on paper, with no one checking whether it works, generally does not hold up well in front of a prosecutor deciding whether to credit it.
Board members need training specific to their fiduciary duties and oversight role, not the same general compliance training given to employees. That includes what questions to ask management about the company’s risk areas, how to read and respond to an investigation report, and what the board’s own exposure looks like if it ignores a red flag it was told about. Documented board-level training also matters later: a board that can show it was engaged and informed is in a far better position than one that cannot.
Yes. The team handles internal investigations and compliance program work nationally, working alongside local counsel in other jurisdictions when a matter requires it.
