LEVICK | April 21st, 2016
What’s Next?: The Yates Memo and New Corporate Culpability and Liability

Lisa Noller, the chair of Foley & Lardner™’s white collar defense practice in Chicago and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, discusses the repercussions of the Yates Memo and the formidable corporate culpability and liability issues that C-Suite executives and board members need to understand.
Lisa, what do corporate executives need to know about how government enforcement is evolving since the Yates Memo was issued? How can they best limit the new liabilities they face?
First, it is important to note that DOJ policy has for many years required companies to provide evidence about culpable individuals to obtain credit for cooperation. The Yates Memo only formalized, and more widely publicized, the government™’s approach. It is important to work with knowledgeable outside counsel when responding to a government inquiry, because different U.S. Attorney™’s Offices (USAOs) have been implementing the Memo differently, and have been defining “cooperation†as a range of activity. For example, some USAOs are merely requiring company counsel to give a presentation about their view of potential wrongdoers. Others are insisting that anyone responsible for the issues under investigation be thoroughly investigated, and severely disciplined or terminated. But because all prosecutors must address potential charges against individuals, company counsel must also do so from early in their investigation.
Second, in practice, potential culpable actors should recognize early the potential for conflict. Counsel needs to explain plainly to officers and directors that they represent the company, and cannot conflate individual and corporate interests unless they truly are aligned. Savvy officers and directors are likely to hire their own lawyers to assess whether to themselves work directly with DOJ – and against the company who may be paying their legal fees. Boards need to anticipate and plan for this potential adversity, while continuing to comply with their own indemnification provisions and coverage.
Third, the Yates Memo made it more clear that the civil and criminal divisions of DOJ must cooperate with each other, from the beginning of an investigation. The positive news from this development is that the DOJ stakeholders are making themselves known from the early stages of a matter, which makes it theoretically easier to reach a global resolution, or, to argue for a civil resolution as an alternate remedy. Where there are different potential remedies available (criminal, civil, or administrative), companies would do well to gather evidence and respond with an eye toward the least punitive remedy.
What other significant developments are occurring in the area of corporate liability? Are there issues on the horizon that all C-Suite executives and board members need to be aware of?
Earlier this month, DOJ announced that any company seeking cooperation credit will be required to sign a certification attesting it has turned over to the government all information about all culpable individuals. This eliminates a company™’s ability to conduct a “light†investigation, where it directs counsel to probe only far enough to learn what happened, but not why conduct occurred or who all the responsible actors are. A false statement on the required certification is itself a crime, so responsible corporate officers must be sure they have indeed been fully forthcoming before signing the form on behalf of a company.
And at the end of 2015, the DOJ Fraud Section announced it had hired a “compliance official,†who will develop and apply benchmarks for evaluating corporate compliance and remediation measures, as well as guide prosecutors and monitors where a Fraud Section case resolution involves on-going program assessments. This hiring underscores DOJ™’s previous pronouncements that for a compliance program to be effective, it must be meaningful. For example, the program must be supported by all C-Suite executives and board members, who themselves must conduct business lawfully, and also must lead others to act in the same manner.
I expect DOJ to hire additional compliance officials in other DOJ priority areas where monitoring is a frequent result of case resolution. For example, DOJ and HHS-OIG frequently resolve significant health care fraud cases with a corporate integrity agreement, often also including a monitor who reports to the government whether the company is following the law. Moreover, if the compliance officials are in place partly to encourage communication and judge the effectiveness of corporate activity, then companies are likely to see an increased use of these individuals – or at least of formal efforts by the government to insert itself more directly into compliance efforts.
How have best practices in internal investigations evolved over the last several years? What lessons have been learned? What changes are necessary to leverage those lessons most effectively?
Government agencies and outside counsel are far more sophisticated than they used to be. When I was a federal prosecutor, counsel often met with me and my supervisors, asking for leniency. But their pitches often failed to address issues that always have been important to DOJ, such as acceptance of responsibility, the seriousness of the offence, the efficacy of any corporate compliance program, collateral consequences, disciplined wrongdoers, etc. As more prosecutors have left DOJ for private practice, we have raised the bar, and now endeavor to do the heavy lifting for any prosecutor. When I investigate a matter for a client, I ask all the questions the civil and criminal prosecutors are going to ask me, and I prepare responses that should form the backbone – if not the substance – of any prosecutor™’s memo to his supervisors to decline the case or resolve the matter for reduced penalties.
LEVICK | April 21st, 2016
What’s Next?: The Yates Memo and New Corporate Culpability and Liability

Lisa Noller, the chair of Foley & Lardner™’s white collar defense practice in Chicago and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, discusses the repercussions of the Yates Memo and the formidable corporate culpability and liability issues that C-Suite executives and board members need to understand.
Lisa, what do corporate executives need to know about how government enforcement is evolving since the Yates Memo was issued? How can they best limit the new liabilities they face?
First, it is important to note that DOJ policy has for many years required companies to provide evidence about culpable individuals to obtain credit for cooperation. The Yates Memo only formalized, and more widely publicized, the government™’s approach. It is important to work with knowledgeable outside counsel when responding to a government inquiry, because different U.S. Attorney™’s Offices (USAOs) have been implementing the Memo differently, and have been defining “cooperation†as a range of activity. For example, some USAOs are merely requiring company counsel to give a presentation about their view of potential wrongdoers. Others are insisting that anyone responsible for the issues under investigation be thoroughly investigated, and severely disciplined or terminated. But because all prosecutors must address potential charges against individuals, company counsel must also do so from early in their investigation.
Second, in practice, potential culpable actors should recognize early the potential for conflict. Counsel needs to explain plainly to officers and directors that they represent the company, and cannot conflate individual and corporate interests unless they truly are aligned. Savvy officers and directors are likely to hire their own lawyers to assess whether to themselves work directly with DOJ – and against the company who may be paying their legal fees. Boards need to anticipate and plan for this potential adversity, while continuing to comply with their own indemnification provisions and coverage.
Third, the Yates Memo made it more clear that the civil and criminal divisions of DOJ must cooperate with each other, from the beginning of an investigation. The positive news from this development is that the DOJ stakeholders are making themselves known from the early stages of a matter, which makes it theoretically easier to reach a global resolution, or, to argue for a civil resolution as an alternate remedy. Where there are different potential remedies available (criminal, civil, or administrative), companies would do well to gather evidence and respond with an eye toward the least punitive remedy.
What other significant developments are occurring in the area of corporate liability? Are there issues on the horizon that all C-Suite executives and board members need to be aware of?
Earlier this month, DOJ announced that any company seeking cooperation credit will be required to sign a certification attesting it has turned over to the government all information about all culpable individuals. This eliminates a company™’s ability to conduct a “light†investigation, where it directs counsel to probe only far enough to learn what happened, but not why conduct occurred or who all the responsible actors are. A false statement on the required certification is itself a crime, so responsible corporate officers must be sure they have indeed been fully forthcoming before signing the form on behalf of a company.
And at the end of 2015, the DOJ Fraud Section announced it had hired a “compliance official,†who will develop and apply benchmarks for evaluating corporate compliance and remediation measures, as well as guide prosecutors and monitors where a Fraud Section case resolution involves on-going program assessments. This hiring underscores DOJ™’s previous pronouncements that for a compliance program to be effective, it must be meaningful. For example, the program must be supported by all C-Suite executives and board members, who themselves must conduct business lawfully, and also must lead others to act in the same manner.
I expect DOJ to hire additional compliance officials in other DOJ priority areas where monitoring is a frequent result of case resolution. For example, DOJ and HHS-OIG frequently resolve significant health care fraud cases with a corporate integrity agreement, often also including a monitor who reports to the government whether the company is following the law. Moreover, if the compliance officials are in place partly to encourage communication and judge the effectiveness of corporate activity, then companies are likely to see an increased use of these individuals – or at least of formal efforts by the government to insert itself more directly into compliance efforts.
How have best practices in internal investigations evolved over the last several years? What lessons have been learned? What changes are necessary to leverage those lessons most effectively?
Government agencies and outside counsel are far more sophisticated than they used to be. When I was a federal prosecutor, counsel often met with me and my supervisors, asking for leniency. But their pitches often failed to address issues that always have been important to DOJ, such as acceptance of responsibility, the seriousness of the offence, the efficacy of any corporate compliance program, collateral consequences, disciplined wrongdoers, etc. As more prosecutors have left DOJ for private practice, we have raised the bar, and now endeavor to do the heavy lifting for any prosecutor. When I investigate a matter for a client, I ask all the questions the civil and criminal prosecutors are going to ask me, and I prepare responses that should form the backbone – if not the substance – of any prosecutor™’s memo to his supervisors to decline the case or resolve the matter for reduced penalties.
- Brand
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- Here We Come
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- Public Perception & the Biden Transition
- WATCH: Reputation Management with PRSA
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Why Non-Profits are so Vulnerable to Crisis Risk
- The Threat to Free Markets
- What Happens When Nonprofits Get Caught In The Klieg Lights?
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Communications
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- Here We Come
- The Ministry of Common Sense
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Public Perception & the Biden Transition
- WATCH: Reputation Management with PRSA
- Leveraging Legal Expertise in Communications
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Company News
- Here We Come
- Recent Awards & Recognition
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- What’s a Director to Do?
- LEVICK Announces Partnership with BCG
- A New Look
- Albert Krieger, 1923-2020
- LEVICK Announces Partnership with Jipyong
- Speaking to In-House Counsel
- Childhood Lessons
- LEVICK Announces New Webinar Series with Turbine Labs
- LEVICK Launches New Website
- Crisis
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- What to expect as the clock approaches midnight
- How to Stop the Madness
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- The Cost of Government Regulation and the Threat to Free Enterprise
- What Happens Next?
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Covid-19: The Pandemic that Never Should Have Happened
- Finance
- Here We Come
- The Threat to Free Markets
- Advisory & Insurance Services
- WATCH: Revolutionizing Litigation Finance
- Litigation Finance: Revolutionizing Litigation
- Consumer-Focused Solutions for Financial Health
- Event: Consumer-Focused Solutions for Financial Health
- Sports: Power and Money in a New Age of Social Justice
- The Balancing Act: The Role of Whistleblowers in American Commerce and Government
- The Evolving and More Powerful FARA
- FCPA & Compliance in a Time of Uncertainty
- Shareholders vs. Stakeholders: Is the Paradigm Shifting?
- Guest Column
- Guest Blog: The Mainstream Media Gets an A for Intellectual Arrogance, an F for Journalism
- Buckle up Directors: Cybersecurity Risk and Bankruptcy Risk Are Not Mutually Exclusive
- Buckle up Directors: Cybersecurity Risk and Bankruptcy Risk Are Not Mutually Exclusive
- South Africa: The Slow Decline of the ANC
- Why CSR Fails and How to Fix It
- What to Expect Following the European Elections?
- Buhari Inaugurated. What Now for Nigeria?
- Marketing- It’s Up To You…
- Crisis Management lessons from the air-crash investigation model
- The Future of War
- Health
- Food Issues & the Biden Administration
- Covid-19: The Pandemic that Never Should Have Happened
- Pharma’s Post-Pandemic Policy Outlook
- Keeping Hope Alive
- Real Herd Immunity
- The Fiction of College Sports Amateurism
- Mac Summit: Crisis Communications in a Post-Covid, Post-Election World
- Travel Industry Communications in the Age of Covid-19
- Track of Time
- Is C-19 Taking Women Lawyers’ Careers Back to the 1950s?
- Post-Pandemic PR Strategy
- Bankruptcy: A Culture of Transparency
- In Memoriam
- Snider’s Super Foods: Locally World Famous
- Speak Truth With Love, Not Anger
- In Memoriam: Stephen Susman
- Letter to the Movement
- John Lewis’ Life Bridged the Best of America
- Albert Krieger, 1923-2020
- In Memoriam of Marcia Horowitz
- Jim Lehrer Passes Away
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Harold Burson Passes Away
- Interviews
- CommPRO: Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Life & Legacy
- Richard Levick on “My Wakeup Call”
- Primerus Webinar: Into the Wind
- The Future of Baseball Post-Pandemic
- Webinar: The End of Brand Neutrality
- Thought Leadership & Organic Growth
- Man & Superman
- LEVICK Announces New Webinar Series with Turbine Labs
- Navigating Coronavirus Challenges in the Insurance Industry
- VIDEO: How to Anticipate & Avoid a Crisis
- What’s Next? with Julie Chase
- What’s Next?: California Electoral Behavior
- Law Firms
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Beyond Black Swan: Positioning the law firm for the new normal
- A Salute to Personal Courage and the Rule of Law
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- When a client becomes a law firm’s PR nightmare
- The General Counsel’s Dilemma
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- The Latest Top Class Actions
- Trust on Trial: How Communicators Succeed in a World No Longer Trusted
- The Latest Settlements, Class actions, Investigations & More
- Managing Legal & Communication Advice in a Crisis
- Litigation
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Leveraging Legal Expertise in Communications
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Beyond Black Swan: Positioning the law firm for the new normal
- A Salute to Personal Courage and the Rule of Law
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- When a client becomes a law firm’s PR nightmare
- The General Counsel’s Dilemma
- WATCH: Revolutionizing Litigation Finance
- Litigation Finance: Revolutionizing Litigation
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- Our Work
- Recent Awards & Recognition
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- Crisis Communications & The Age of Cancel Culture
- Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
- Video: Conversations with American Legends
- Staying Ahead of the Crisis
- A New Era of Insurance Marketing
- Infographic: Judgment Free Zone
- Infographic: Barriers to Entry
- Infographic: History Meter
- Assistance for Law Firms Engaged in Pro Bono
- Webinar: The End of Brand Neutrality
- Public Affairs
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- What to expect as the clock approaches midnight
- How to Stop the Madness
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- Food Issues & the Biden Administration
- The Cost of Government Regulation and the Threat to Free Enterprise
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Risk
- Ingredients of Decency
- ESG Performance and Credit Markets
- The Coronavirus Saga is Just Beginning
- No. 1 Risk of the Decade
- The Risk Evolution of Corporate Risk
- Extend Risk Management Reach
- Collective Action
- Risk Identifying Software
- The New Risk of Doing Nothing
- Political Unrest In Hong Kong
- High-Profile Kidnaps in African National Parks
- Cyber Resilience
- Social
- The Ministry of Common Sense
- How to Stop the Madness
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- CSR & Sustainability
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Dropping the Mic
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- Crisis, Covid, DEI & the Election
- MLK’s Memphis Address
- Technology
- Constella Intelligence Announces Hunter for Improved Investigation Capability
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- Digital Politics: The Future of Voting Technology
- Ethics in Electronics
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- The Pause
- Cybersecurity Incidents of the Summer
- The Changing Digital Economy and Cyber Risks
- The Future of U.S. Manufacturing
- Tech CEO Summer Superbowl hearing
- Technology & Privacy Alert
- This Week
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Dropping the Mic
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- What We Hear
- Track of Time
- Video: Conversations with American Legends
- Conversations with American Legends
- A New Era of Insurance Marketing
- American Legend