Internal Investigation Protocol Template
Four documents and three sheets that classify every witness into a warning tier before the first interview, not after.
Free download · No account needed
Investigation Plan · Talworth Systems, Inc. · Revenue Recognition Complaint
Three witnesses on the same complaint. Three different warnings, fixed three days before interview one.
Rank does not decide the tier. Whether the witness's own conduct is at issue, and whether they are already represented elsewhere, does.
| Witness | Role | Own Conduct at Issue? | Warning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Vance | Account Executive | No | Standard |
| Dana Okafor | Sales Operations Manager | Yes | Enhanced |
| Marcus Whitfield | VP of Sales, West | Yes, and represented | Enhanced, via counsel |
18 witnesses, 4 flagged for the enhanced warning, 0 interviewed before the plan said which
The tier is decided before the interview, not after. Once an interview happens under the wrong warning, there is no interview to redo, only a decision about whether what was said can be used at all.
Every internal investigation protocol on the first page of results is the same checklist: name a supervisor, preserve the data, protect privilege, interview witnesses, write up the findings. Protecting privilege is one bullet among a dozen, never the artifact deciding whether an interview is protected. Corporate attorney-client privilege, under Upjohn Co. v. United States, covers an employee's communications with counsel made at a superior's direction to secure legal advice for the company, on a matter within that employee's own duties. It does not depend on rank, and no generic warning satisfies it.
This pack starts there. The Investigation Plan classifies every witness into a warning tier before the first interview, not after. Standard is for a fact witness, enhanced is for a witness whose own decisions are being evaluated, and a third tier adds counsel coordination once that witness is already represented in a related matter. The distinction is not academic: in the Broadcom stock-option investigation, a warning that told a witness only the interview was on behalf of the company, without saying counsel did not represent him personally, got his own statements suppressed.
Applied to Talworth Systems, Inc., a hotline complaint over undisclosed return-rights side letters on four Q4 deals produces 18 witnesses, classified three days before the first interview. Fourteen are standard. Two are enhanced subjects not yet represented, and two are enhanced subjects already named in a shareholder derivative demand, interviewed only once their own counsel confirmed it. Eighteen interviews and 79 logged evidence items later, the Findings Report resolves three deals, $1,907,000, to terms that bypassed the company's sign-off policy, and clears the fourth, the same reconciliation habit a wider compliance program runs on.
What's in the pack
Investigation Plan
Every witness classified into a warning tier before the first interview, not after, with the reasoning for each one stated.
Upjohn Warning Script
Both variants written in full, covering the core elements a warning has to make clear, and when to route through a witness's own lawyer instead.
Timeline
Every triggering event and every interview dated in one place, so the classification date checks directly against the first interview date.
Interview Memoranda
One memorandum per interview, drafted the same day, naming the exact warning read and the witness's acknowledgment.
Interview Register
Every interview logged with its tier, its warning version, and whether the witness is already represented elsewhere.
Evidence Register
Every collected item logged with its source system, its collector, and the collection date, so custody is provable, not assumed.
Findings Report
Findings organized by what is being evaluated, not by witness, with individual conduct and the process gap kept separate.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or take it blank
Open the pack in River and describe the complaint or trigger, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets from the template library and build the plan yourself.
- 2
Classify every witness first
List everyone who might have relevant knowledge and assign each one a warning tier, standard, enhanced, or enhanced with counsel coordination, before any interview is scheduled.
- 3
Read the right warning, log it the same day
The assigned variant gets read in full before any substantive question, and the same-day memorandum and register entry record exactly which version and when.
- 4
Close out with the Findings Report
Once every witness is interviewed and every item is logged, the Findings Report draws from that record rather than from memory of how the interviews went.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes, no account or card required. The download is Word documents and CSV sheets in a zip. Edit with AI is the second half: the agent builds the Investigation Plan from the complaint itself and classifies every witness before scheduling the first interview.
What am I actually downloading?
Four Word documents and three CSV sheets, zipped. The registers and timeline open in Excel, Numbers or Google Sheets straight off the download, and the plan, warning script, memoranda, and findings report open in Word or Pages.
Why isn't a generic investigation checklist enough?
A checklist proves a supervisor was named and privilege was on a list of steps to protect. It does not record which of three warnings applied to which witness, or when. That classification is what a court actually examines if privilege over a specific interview is ever challenged, not whether some warning happened somewhere.
What's the difference between the standard and enhanced warning?
Standard tells a witness who the lawyer represents and that the company controls the privilege. Enhanced adds that the witness's own conduct is being evaluated, their interests may differ from the company's, and they may want their own lawyer before continuing. The wrong variant for a given witness is a mistake the interview itself cannot undo afterward.
What if a witness already has their own lawyer?
Contact goes through that lawyer first, not to the witness directly, once the representation is confirmed. Under the no-contact rule, a lawyer generally cannot communicate with someone about the matter if the lawyer knows that person is already represented by another lawyer in it, absent that lawyer's consent. The register flags this before scheduling, not after a call already happened.
How does this fit with the other legal packs?
Findings here often feed the wider program on the compliance pack. A regulator asking about the same underlying conduct routes to the inquiry response pack instead, since its numbered-specification map runs on the same scope-position logic this plan applies witness by witness.
What if the investigation leads to litigation or a formal discovery request?
The evidence already logged carries over directly. The document review and privilege pack turns the same Evidence Register into a formal privilege log. The discovery response pack answers each request for production the way this plan answers each witness, tied to the document that satisfies it.
Classify every witness before the first interview
Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or open this exact pack in River and describe the complaint you received.
Edit with AI