Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

In the high stakes setting of competition investigations, counsel should begin with a clear, client‑focused preparation plan that aligns factual narratives with legal obligations. Start by mapping the potential interview scope, identifying who may be interviewed, and what documents are likely to be requested. Build a timeline that accounts for internal approvals, privilege considerations, and realistic hard deadlines. Engage leadership early to set expectations about cooperation, confidentiality, and the firm’s stance on privilege. Train clients to distinguish between descriptive, non‑incriminating information and sensitive, privilege‑protected content. Emphasize the importance of honesty, consistency, and accuracy, even when memories are imperfect or information is incomplete.

A robust preparation program also requires practical steps for document management and communications. Establish a centralized, secure repository with clear access controls and audit trails, so every document can be traced to its source. Create a simple, user‑friendly intake process that captures metadata such as dates, parties involved, and document types, enabling rapid retrieval during interviews. Develop a standard set of non‑response responses that avoid over‑disclosure while preserving credibility. Prepare clients to describe processes, not policies, when appropriate, and to articulate role-specific insights without exposing sensitive strategic information. Finally, rehearse live responses to typical questions to build confidence and reduce the risk of evasive answers.

The first practical priority is establishing credibility through consistent messaging across all levels of the organization. Counsel should synchronize what the client says with documented evidence, ensuring there are no contradictions that could undermine the investigation’s integrity. Provide a narrative framework that structures responses around material facts, timeline coherence, and demonstrable compliance measures. Strive to avoid speculative or unverifiable statements, recognizing that even well‑intentioned omissions can be interpreted as evasive. Privilege issues must be clearly flagged, with guidance on what can be shared under waiver or assertion of privilege. Training should cover how to handle follow‑up inquiries that probe potential gaps without blurring privilege boundaries.

Equally important is a disciplined approach to timing and follow‑through. Clients should understand that delays can trigger suspicion, even when they arise from a legitimate need to gather information. Establish contingent response dates, designate a primary point of contact, and insist on rapid escalation of any blockers. Document requests should be reviewed promptly to determine scope, relevance, and privilege implications. If a request appears overbroad, counsel should request narrowing or a phased production plan. Equally critical is preparing redacted or summarized responses when full disclosures are unnecessary or harmful to legitimate interests. This disciplined cadence helps maintain momentum and lowers the chance of missteps.

A cornerstone of readiness is a structured document‑production protocol that threads governance, accuracy, and safety. Begin with a thorough inventory of potential documents, categorizing items by relevance, privilege status, and retention requirements. Use a standardized production plan that specifies formats, pagination, and accompanying explanations. Implement a secure workflow for privilege review, ensuring that any disputed items receive timely attention and documented rationales. Train staff to preserve original metadata and to avoid altering source documents during preparation. Establish clear rules for communicating with the competition authority, including the use of formal privilege logs and notices about sensitive information.

Alongside technical rigor, cultivate a culture of proactive cooperation. Encourage joint representation where appropriate to harmonize messages and avoid mixed signals. Ensure team members understand the strategic purpose behind each document and interview answer, linking procedural compliance to legal rights. When possible, practice with mock interviews that simulate the competition authority’s line of questioning, including requests for internal emails, drafts, and decision documents. Debrief after each drill to capture lessons learned and adjust processes accordingly. Emphasize that cooperation is not a sign of weakness but a path to a more targeted, efficient investigation.

Clarity is non‑negotiable in interviews; vague responses invite misinterpretation and unnecessary disclosure. Train clients to answer the precise question asked, avoiding off‑point information that could complicate later stages. Encourage succinct, factual statements supported by documentary evidence, with caveats where necessary. When privilege applies, spell out why a document or portion of it cannot be produced, and where possible offer redacted summaries that retain relevance without compromising confidential strategies. Maintain a record of all statements and their sources so credibility remains intact if the matter escalates to litigation or further inquiries.

Accuracy under pressure requires disciplined fact‑checking and version control. Before any interview, confirm key dates, participants, and decisions with responsible executives or project leads. Document any inconsistencies encountered during preparation, but avoid guessing or over‑interpreting. If a discrepancy is found, seek confirmation from the source rather than altering the record post hoc. Practicing this approach reduces the risk of contradictions that could undermine the client’s position. It also demonstrates a commitment to truthful engagement with the authorities, which can influence the overall tone of the investigation.

Strategic restraint is essential when navigating the interplay between cooperation and risk. Counsel should evaluate which documents are essential to produce promptly and which should be subject to a privilege or over‑breadth objection. This evaluation requires a careful balance: timely compliance signals good faith, while selective disclosure preserves competitive secrets and sensitive strategies. Develop a reasoned approach to document redaction, including explanations for why specific content is withheld. Where possible, propose phased productions that align with the investigation’s milestones. This measured approach reduces exposure to unnecessary scrutiny and preserves the client’s broader competitive position.

Another critical element is the management of communications with the competition authority. Establish guidance on who may speak, how disclosures are framed, and how follow‑ups are handled. Provide template language for responses that remain precise yet flexible enough to accommodate evolving inquiries. Ensure that communications avoid speculation about motivations or intent, focusing instead on verifiable facts and documented procedures. A clear, measured dialogue helps build trust with the authority while protecting the client from inadvertent admissions or unintended disclosures.

The concluding stage of preparation is institutionalizing a sustainable compliance program that endures beyond a single investigation. Create ongoing training that keeps legal teams current on procedural changes, data‑retention requirements, and privilege practices. Implement periodic audits of document handling, interview readiness, and privilege designations to identify gaps before they become problems. Encourage a culture of continuous improvement, inviting feedback from staff at all levels about obstacles and potential refinements. The goal is to embed a proactive mindset, so future investigations aremet with the same disciplined, collaborative approach that characterizes successful outcomes.

Finally, document outcomes and lessons learned to inform future responses and risk assessments. After an investigation closes, conduct a debrief that revisits the effectiveness of preparation materials, interview scripts, and production protocols. Capture quantitative metrics such as time to produce, error rates in disclosures, and the frequency of privilege challenges. Translate those insights into updated policies, checklists, and training modules. By codifying these practices, counsel can accelerate readiness for subsequent inquiries, maintain high standards of compliance, and strengthen the client’s resilience against evolving enforcement trends.