Defending Research Misconduct Cases (Part 3) – The Inquiry Stage

Close-up shot of microscopeIn Part 1 of this series, we described the various steps of the research misconduct life cycle. Today, we’re digging deeper into the early stage of a research misconduct case, so you know what to expect. More important, we’ll give you some suggestions about what you should (and shouldn’t) do.

The Assessment Stage

When the allegations are first reported to the university or research institution, there will be an “assessment” of the allegations. That assessment is generally very bare bones and simply determines if the allegations are credible on their face, whether they allege research misconduct and whether the institution has jurisdiction over them.

The policy for Cal Tech has typical language describing the assessment stage. The Research Integrity Officer (RIO) will assess:

any allegation of research misconduct to determine whether the conduct falls within the scope of this policy, whether the allegation, if true, would include conduct that meets the definition of research misconduct, and whether the allegation is sufficiently specific such that potential evidence of research misconduct could be identified.

For example, if someone complains that a researcher drives too fast or pays a housekeeper under the table, the institution will conclude during the assessment that these allegations do not fall within its jurisdiction or are not about research misconduct. Or if someone reports that a researcher is secretly an extraterrestrial, that likely will not make it past the assessment phase.

Even if an allegation doesn’t fall within the RIO’s jurisdiction, the institution may still counsel the researcher or try to work out a resolution. But, more likely, the researcher likely will not ever learn about the allegations at all.

Assuming the allegations survive the assessment stage, the next stage is the “inquiry.”

This is when things get serious.

Continue reading

Posted in Research misconduct | Leave a comment

Same Same, But Different: The Basics of Congressional Investigations

iStock-885674728.jpgBy  Dan Portnov[1]

The swearing in of the 116th Congress last month brought with it promises of vigorous new investigations into the Trump administration – as well as other related public and private industry conduct.  Last week’s brief standoff between former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and House Judiciary Committee over a possible subpoena to the former showed that the Democrat-led House committees are eager to make a statement. While the nature and scope of future investigations are yet to be revealed, defense attorneys specializing in congressional investigations (that includes us!) have been salivating over the opportunity for new work.

Congressional investigations are a curious beast – not criminal, not civil, but nonetheless perilous. This series of posts will provide some basics on congressional investigations and key ways in which they differ from criminal or regulatory investigations.

Continue reading

Posted in Congressional investigation | Leave a comment

SEC Investigations 101: Testimony

This post is the fifth in a series of posts for non-lawyers, or non-securities lawyers, who might suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Securities and Exchange Commission document request, subpoena or call from Enforcement division staff.

SEC HQ front.jpgBy  Dan Portnov

If the SEC has opened up a formal investigation or a MUI (Matter Under Inquiry) that involves you or your company, will you have to speak to Enforcement staff? That’s one of life’s great uncertainties but odds are that it will not resolve before you have.

What exactly does that mean? And how can you and your lawyer prepare?

Continue reading

Posted in SEC Investigation, SEC policy and practice | Leave a comment

Roger Stone’s Early-Morning Arrest: Stop the Perp Walk

Businessman is arrested and handcuffedIf you read my Twitter feed, you may know that I am a bit left of center when it comes to politics. Ok, I’m a lot left of center.

But, like so many criminal defense lawyers, I don’t judge my clients’ politics. I have clients who are far right, far left, in the middle and downright apolitical.

It doesn’t matter to me. I’m there to protect and represent them, no matter their political views.

So, although my political side may have been pleased to see Roger Stone, President Trump’s longtime advisor, arrested this morning, that’s not the end of it.

My defense-lawyer side raged at his arrest.

Why in the world is the FBI showing up at Mr. Stone’s house in full SWAT-team gear to arrest him? And, how is it that the media just happened to be there?

The perp walk is alive and well.

It’s an abuse of prosecutorial and law enforcement power.

It should stop.

Continue reading

Posted in DOJ policy and practice, FBI policy and practice | Tagged | 1 Comment

Decisions, Decisions: What Are the Potential Criminal Violations If President Trump Encouraged Michael Cohen to Lie to Congress?

Three Closed Doors in the Room

On January 17, 2019, BuzzFeed reported that “President Donald Trump directed his longtime attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow, according to two federal law enforcement officials involved in an investigation of the matter.”

This report is based on anonymous sources. Then, on January 19, the Special Counsel’s Office issued a statement that kind of denied it:

BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.

So far, BuzzFeed is standing by its story, and it urged “the Special Counsel to make clear what he’s disputing.”

Admittedly, the Special Counsel’s statement was not very specific about what was wrong in the story. Mr. Cohen’s February 7 congressional testimony may shed some light on these allegations.

Just for fun, though, let’s assume it happened. Let’s assume that President Trump directed his lawyer to lie to Congress about a matter being investigated by Congress, the FBI and now the Special Counsel’s Office.

What would be so wrong with that?

A lot of things. I’ve come up with five possibilities so far.

Continue reading

Posted in Obstruction, Perjury | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Defending Research Misconduct Cases Part 2 – What is Research Misconduct?

Close-up shot of microscopeWhen are you accused of a crime, you can look up the statute that defines the crime and then your lawyer can research court cases that interpret it. All of that information helps to defend against the charges.

This information can also help you determine what conduct is illegal so you can avoid engaging in it in the first place.

When it comes to research misconduct, though, information is scarce. There are very few court decisions. And, even though there is an administrative process to challenge findings of research misconduct, that process rarely results in a written opinion that provides helpful guidance.

Despite the lack of information, understanding the definition of research misconduct is a key element to defending against these types of allegations. You may be surprised how broad the definition of “research misconduct” is.

Continue reading

Posted in Research misconduct | Leave a comment

SEC Investigations 101: Cooperation?

This post is the fourth in a series of posts for non-lawyers, or non-securities lawyers, who might suddenly find themselves on the wrong end of a Securities and Exchange Commission document request, subpoena or call from Enforcement division staff.

By Dan Portnov SEC HQ front.jpg

Thanks to the ongoing Special Counsel investigation, we have been inundated with high profile examples of how cooperation works in criminal investigations, how it doesn’t work and how it can seemingly blow up. Even the President has weighed in on cooperation, saying that it “almost ought to be illegal.” Nevertheless, cooperators are vital for law enforcement to do its job.

(And, no, there’s nothing “illegal” about it.)

Just as federal prosecutors rely on cooperators to prove up their cases in exchange for recommendations of leniency at sentencing, so does the SEC incentivize cooperation by individuals and companies in its investigations. But what exactly does cooperation mean in the SEC context? And how should an individual make the decision to cooperate with the SEC?

Continue reading

Posted in SEC Investigation, SEC policy and practice | Leave a comment

Happy New Year! Our Most-Read Blog Posts in 2018

Top 10 LetterpressHappy new year to our readers!

This year, Dan Portnov began writing regularly for Grand Jury Target, particularly about SEC matters. We’d like to thank everyone for reading. There’s nothing I like better than meeting someone new who says “I love your blog.” I’m even happy when you say “I kind of like your blog” or “I’ve heard of your blog.”

It’s a low bar, really.

At the end of the year, we find it interesting to look back at what posts were the most popular.  It helps us pick topics going forward. It’s not fun to write posts that no one reads.

This year, the pattern is plain: the Russia investigation is a hot topic. Many readers wanted to read about Michael Cohen and about issues related to grand jury investigations.

Here are the top 10 posts for the year:

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Practical Insights from SEC’s Newest Enforcement Associate Directors

 

SEC HQ front.jpg

By Y. Ramona Lin[1]

Last week, I had the pleasure of [virtually] attending a lunch and discussion featuring two newest SEC Enforcement Associate Directors, Anita Bandy and Carolyn Welshhans.[2] The discussion was moderated by Kara Brockmeyer, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton and former Chief of the SEC’s FCPA Unit.

(Disclaimer: the views of the individual associate directors do not represent those of the Commission or their colleagues.)

Some key takeaways from the discussion included:

Continue reading

Posted in SEC Investigation, SEC policy and practice | Leave a comment

Initial Coin Offerings and What the SEC Might Think About Them: An Update

By Daniel Portnov
SEC HQ front.jpgEarlier this week I attended the DC Bar’s Communities program “Crypto Update: Current Issues Relating to Blockchain, Digital Assets and ICOs” featuring two members of the Commission’s staff – Assistant Director Jennifer Leete from the Enforcement

Division and the Deputy Chief Counsel Jonathan Ingram from the Division of Corporate Finance.[1] Like our post earlier this year from Commissioner Jackson’s reception, Ms. Leete and Mr. Ingram offered valuable insight into Enforcement and CorpFin’s thinking on cryptocurrencies and ICOs. (Necessary disclaimer: the views of the individual staff members did not reflect those of the Commission or their colleagues.)

The key takeaways from the program included:

Continue reading

Posted in SEC Investigation, SEC policy and practice | Leave a comment