During the past year, I went from the U.S. Senate to the Kasowitz Benson firm, from making law to practicing law, and so I have been thinking a lot about the differences between the two, particularly in relation to corporate investigations where I have begun to focus my practice. As a Senator and, before that, Attorney General of Connecticut, I oversaw many investigations of government and private individuals and groups. In this article, I want to reflect on some of the lessons I have drawn that I believe are helpful in representing clients before such investigations and in conducting such investigations in private practice.
Ascertain the scope and purpose of the investigation and short- and long-term plans of members of the Congressional committee and staff. Congress possesses plenary authority over what it may investigate,1 and has at its disposal a wide range of investigatory tools to achieve the objectives of an investigation, as long as it serves a legislative function.2 Indeed, in McGrain v. Daugherty,3 the Supreme Court held that the power to investigate is an “essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.”
