View all articles | Read the next article | Take the CCB CEU quiz

In today’s regulatory environment, companies rarely face a single, isolated investigation. Instead, it has become increasingly common for organizations and their employees to find themselves at the intersection of multiple, overlapping legal proceedings — criminal, civil, and administrative. For compliance professionals, this growing trend presents substantial risks and strategic challenges. Issues that begin as a narrow civil matter may quickly expand, drawing the attention of criminal prosecutors, regulatory agencies, or even private litigants. Navigating these parallel proceedings requires a clear understanding of the landscape, proactive risk management, and tight coordination among legal, compliance, and business teams.

This article provides compliance professionals with a structured framework for understanding parallel proceedings, identifies key risks and challenges, and offers practical guidance on how to respond effectively, with the aim of equipping you with the tools to anticipate and mitigate the dangers inherent in this complex legal terrain.

Understanding parallel proceedings

What are parallel proceedings?

At their core, parallel proceedings are investigations or cases — civil, criminal, and/or administrative — that run simultaneously or successively, often involving overlapping facts or parties. While these matters may proceed independently, their paths frequently intersect, creating complexity and heightened risk for the organizations involved.

NAVIGATING THE MINEFIELD: MANAGING RISKS IN PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS by Ralph Caccia and Diana Shaw

Common triggers for parallel proceedings

Several events can trigger parallel proceedings, including:

• Whistleblower complaints (internal or external, such as qui tam relators) 
• Regulatory or public disclosures by the company 
• Investigative media reporting 
• Congressional inquiries 
• One proceeding draws the attention of other regulatory bodies 

A civil matter can easily attract the attention of criminal authorities or spark administrative actions, sometimes even crossing international borders as foreign regulators coordinate with U.S. agencies.

Key players and jurisdictions

Federal agencies

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sits at the center of parallel proceedings, wielding both criminal and civil enforcement powers. In the civil arena, agencies like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

(SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are prominent actors. The SEC typically focuses on securities fraud and accounting violations, often in tandem with DOJ investigations. The CFTC pursues market manipulation and commodities fraud, coordinating with the DOJ when alleged misconduct rises to the level of criminality.

Private parties and administrative actions

Parallel proceedings are not limited to government agencies. Private parties, such as qui tam relators, class action plaintiffs, and shareholders in derivative suits, can initiate actions that overlap with regulatory or criminal investigations. Administrative proceedings, though less often discussed, carry significant consequences. For example, suspension and debarment actions can bar companies or individuals from doing business with the federal government, while Medicare/ Medicaid exclusion proceedings can prevent healthcare providers from participating in federally funded programs.

Cross-border coordination

Globalization means that U.S. regulators often work closely with foreign authorities. Tools such as Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, extradition agreements, and memoranda of understanding facilitate cross-border investigations and information sharing, amplifying the complexity and risk for multinational companies.

Evidentiary challenges

Parallel proceedings create significant evidentiary risks because information disclosed in one forum — such as a civil investigation — can be used against a company in criminal or administrative cases, making it difficult to control how and where sensitive data is ultimately used. Additionally, disclosures may inadvertently waive attorney– client privilege or work product protections, exposing confidential communications across all related investigations. These challenges require compliance professionals to coordinate closely with legal counsel and ensure consistent, strategic responses to avoid missteps and protect the organization’s interests.

Collateral use of information

One of the most significant risks in parallel proceedings is the collateral use of information. Civil regulators routinely share what they learn with their criminal enforcement counterparts, and vice versa. Information disclosed in a civil investigation can be used against a company in a criminal case, and disclosures made in one forum may surface unexpectedly in another. While there are limits — including limitations on the sharing of grand jury material — the general principle remains: once information is released, it is difficult to control.

Protecting privilege

Few things alarm lawyers more than the fear of inadvertently losing privilege. Making certain disclosures in one proceeding can result in a waiver of the attorney–client privilege or work product protections in others. Even limited document productions can open the door to broader subject-matter waivers, exposing sensitive communications across all related investigations. Compliance professionals must work closely with counsel to safeguard privilege, as even tactical disclosures may have unintended ripple effects.

Legal team coordination

When multiple legal teams handle different aspects of parallel proceedings, the risk of inconsistent positions or exploitable gaps increases. Coordinated discovery responses and litigation strategies are essential to ensure the company speaks with one unified voice and avoids missteps.

Evidentiary standards

The burden of proof varies depending on the proceeding. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while civil matters generally require only a preponderance of the evidence. This disparity can influence decisions about cooperation and disclosure, as admissions in a civil context may all but guarantee success for prosecutors in a criminal case.

Responding to civil investigative demands

Many parallel proceedings are set in motion when a company receives a Civil Investigative Demand (CID). The arrival of a CID should immediately put the company and its counsel on guard, as information provided in response can be freely shared among regulatory and enforcement agencies, amplifying both risk and complexity.

The nature and risks of CIDs

A CID is an administrative subpoena that compels the production of documents, written responses, or oral testimony — often before formal legal proceedings commence. CIDs are one-sided; companies cannot seek reciprocal information from the government. Critically, information provided in response to a CID can be freely shared among agencies and used in criminal matters.

Best practices for responding to CIDs

1. Consult counsel immediately: Attempting to respond without legal advice is risky. A concurrent criminal investigation may be underway, even if you are unaware of it.

2. Open communication with the agency: Where appropriate, engage with the issuing agency to narrow the scope and clarify your company’s status as a target or witness. 

3. Protect privileges: Take steps to preserve attorney–client and work product protections, as disclosures can have broad consequences. 

4. Coordinate responses: Ensure consistency across all proceedings to avoid contradictions and gaps. 

Internal investigations: Interviews and counsel

When a company suspects or learns that a government investigation is imminent or already underway, conducting an internal investigation becomes a critical step. By proactively gathering facts and assessing the scope of potential liability, the organization can better understand its exposure and prepare an informed response. This approach enables compliance professionals and counsel to identify risks early and develop strategies to protect the company’s interests.

Companies must be wary of common internal investigation pitfalls, however, such as failing to provide proper warnings before witness interviews, which can jeopardize privilege protections, and overlooking the need for separate counsel when conflicts of interest arise between the organization and individual employees. These missteps can have serious consequences, including the suppression of evidence in subsequent proceedings.

Witness interviews and Upjohn warnings

When conducting internal investigations, particularly witness interviews, it is vital to provide an Upjohn warning. This warning clarifies that the attorney represents the company, not the individual employee, and that the attorney–client privilege belongs to the company as the client. The warning also notifies the employee that the company can choose to waive privilege and disclose the witness’s statements to third parties, including the government. Failure to provide proper warnings gives rise to the risk of an inadvertent joint representation; it could limit a company’s ability to voluntarily waive privilege later, including as part of settlement negotiations with the government.

Separate counsel and conflicts of interest

A single legal team representing both the company and its employees can promote efficiency, but parallel proceedings often create conflicts of interest. When a particular employee’s intentional misconduct is the subject of the allegations, or when employees seek immunity or directly receive subpoenas, separate counsel is usually unavoidable. Courts expect prompt action on conflicts; if parties delay seeking separate counsel after a known conflict, later attempts to stay proceedings to obtain separate counsel will likely be rejected.

Fifth Amendment considerations

While corporations cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination, their officers, directors, and employees can. In criminal proceedings, a witness’s invocation of the Fifth cannot be used against the witness to suggest guilt. However, in civil matters, courts may allow adverse inferences to be drawn against both individuals and, in some cases, the corporation itself.

For instance, if witnesses from Company A invoke their Fifth Amendment rights during a deposition, a judge can instruct the jury in a civil proceeding to infer that the witnesses’ answers would have been adverse not only to the witnesses but also to Company A. This means an employee’s decision to invoke the Fifth may have direct consequences for the company in civil litigation.

Cooperating with the government

During or upon completion of an internal investigation, companies often face a pivotal decision: whether to proactively engage with government authorities in hopes of resolving the matter short of litigation. This choice is rarely straightforward, as it involves balancing the potential benefits of cooperation — such as reduced penalties or favorable settlements — against significant risks, including potential loss of privilege and exposure to further liability. Careful consideration of these trade-offs is essential to crafting an effective response strategy.

Incentives and risks

Government agencies offer incentives for cooperation, such as non-prosecution agreements, reduced penalties, and cooperation credit under the DOJ’s Corporate Enforcement Policy. A recent update to the DOJ’s voluntary self-disclosure policy provides greater clarity and predictability than had previously existed. Namely, whereas in the past DOJ offered a “presumption” of a declination for voluntary self-disclosures that complied with certain factors, the DOJ “will” now decline to prosecute a corporation for criminal conduct if it makes a proper voluntary self-disclosure (i.e., fully cooperates, timely remediates, and lacks aggravating circumstances).

Even when aggravating factors are present, the policy allows for “near miss” treatment, such as a non-prosecution agreement with reduced penalties if the company acts in good faith and remediates appropriately.

However, cooperation carries significant risks. Among other things, disclosing information to one agency can result in a waiver of privilege, and information may migrate to other agencies or become discoverable in private litigation.

Pursuing global resolutions

When parallel proceedings arise, companies should pursue a global resolution: a single, comprehensive settlement that resolves all related criminal, civil, and administrative matters. Global resolutions provide finality, prevent “piling on” of penalties, and ensure consistent messaging and obligations across agencies and jurisdictions. While negotiating such settlements is arduous, the benefits in terms of closure and capped liability are substantial.

Risks of admissions and discoverability

Settlements carry their own risks. Admissions made in settlement agreements can be used by private plaintiffs in related civil actions. Draft agreements and communications with regulators may also be discoverable. Whenever possible, companies should avoid admitting guilt or liability, or, if unavoidable, limit admissions as narrowly as possible.

Deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs)

DPAs offer an alternative to prosecution, but they come with significant strings attached. These agreements may require admissions of wrongdoing, which can be used against the company in subsequent proceedings. Noncontradiction clauses may limit the company’s ability to defend itself in related cases, and cooperation requirements often extend for years, including ongoing information sharing with government agencies and foreign authorities. Given these constraints, companies must carefully evaluate the long-term implications of entering into a DPA, as the obligations and risks can persist well beyond the initial resolution.

Conclusion

Parallel criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings present unprecedented complexity for modern companies. For compliance professionals, the challenge is not only to respond effectively but to anticipate where the next risk may arise. Helping to protect privilege, ensuring consistency, and weighing cooperation must be part of a holistic strategy — one that positions the company to withstand scrutiny across multiple fronts.

By understanding the landscape, engaging in careful coordination, and acting with discipline, compliance teams can help their organizations avoid the most dangerous pitfalls of parallel proceedings and achieve more favorable outcomes — both legally and reputationally.

Above all, maintain a disciplined, coordinated, and strategic approach. Parallel proceedings are a minefield, but with proper preparation, compliance professionals can help their organizations navigate the risks and emerge with their legal, reputational, and operational interests intact.

Takeaways

• ◆ Engage in early and ongoing coordination. Engage legal, compliance, and business teams from the outset. Ensure all efforts are aligned, and information is shared internally to avoid inconsistent positions. 
• ◆ Ensure vigilant privilege protection. Anticipate privilege risks at every stage. Limit disclosures, document privilege assertions, and coordinate with counsel to preserve protections. 
• ◆ Focus on strategic communication. All external communications, whether with regulators, investigators, or the media, should be carefully managed and consistent across proceedings to avoid contradictions and mitigate reputational harm. 
• ◆ Evaluate cooperation holistically: Weigh the benefits and risks of cooperation across all potential proceedings, not just the matter at hand. Cooperating in one proceeding can have serious implications for other proceedings. 
• ◆ Prepare for global coordination: Be aware of cross-border risks and coordinate with international counsel as needed. Globalization means that U.S. regulators often work closely with foreign authorities, amplifying complexity and risk for multinational companies. 

View all articles          Read the next article

March 2026 | CEP Magazine 33