Hundreds of prosecutors and law enforcement agents have left the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) since January 2025. Many have landed or are seeking in-house jobs handling internal investigations of potential misconduct. But not all the instincts and skills they developed in DOJ will translate directly to the private sector.
That was the message three former DOJ prosecutors delivered in a panel I moderated at Compliance Week’s National Conference in May. Each left the government years ago, and has since led the investigations functions at large companies. They were candid about the challenges they faced in their transitions and what they had to unlearn to succeed. Five mindset shifts in particular stood out.
Boiling the ocean
The instinct to chase every lead is the most limiting mindset. You are no longer investigating to the standard demanded in federal court, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And you no longer enjoy the luxuries of federal funding, tools like search warrants, and a timeline bounded only by a years-long statute of limitations. Company decision-makers are relying on you to conduct a tailored, cost-efficient, and prompt investigation that provides enough facts to make a reasonably informed and defensible decision.
Reasonableness is the touchstone of internal investigations. Translated to a legal standard, that often means preponderance of the evidence—whether it is more likely than not that misconduct occurred. Success therefore, requires discipline in scoping the question, building the investigative plan to that question, keeping to a schedule, and resisting the pull to talk to every witness and review every document that could conceivably have relevant information. In other words, no more boiling the ocean.
Ounce of prevention
When a right-sized internal investigation finds that there was misconduct, the matter is not over. That’s when the often harder work begins: Conducting a root-cause analysis and developing a remediation plan. This is unfamiliar terrain for former prosecutors and agents, whose work on a case typically ended once they secured the conviction and sentencing of a defendant. DOJ did not look to them to diagnose why the crime happened and how to keep it from happening again. But companies do expect that from their investigators.
Company leadership needs to understand not just the who and what, but the why; not just the control that failed, but the cultural environment that let it fail; and not just how to discipline the bad actor, but how to educate other employees on spotting and escalating the red flags of that misconduct. Investigators who can credibly tie findings to effective remediation—sharper policies, enhanced controls, refreshed training, tone-at-the-top messaging—will justify their headcount because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Gotcha game
Getting the investigative scope and remediation right is only part of the adjustment. How investigators treat people along the way can matter just as much. Prosecutors and agents generally do not work alongside the people they investigate. The person across the table is not a colleague they will see in the office tomorrow. So the use of sharp tactics like the Gotcha Game—surprising a witness with a damning document, springing a contradiction at the last moment—does not tend to come back to bite. But that’s not always the case in a company.
A corporate investigator walks through the same door every day as the people they investigate and interview. These are professionals who expect a measure of respect and can respond poorly to tactics designed to corner them. They will talk among themselves and with colleagues about how you treated them, and your reputation will travel. That will shape how people interact with you going forward, and not just when you come knocking. An effective investigations function depends on people feeling comfortable knocking on your door, whether a whistleblower, witness, or someone with a suspicion they cannot quite articulate. They will come to you only if you are known as a straight shooter. To earn that trust, you have to be mindful of the broader risks of the Gotcha Game and other hardball tactics.
Cards close to the chest
Being sensitive to internal dynamics is also important when it comes to sharing information. Within DOJ, the working circle is tight: Need-to-know only, even within the office.
Inside a company, that instinct can backfire. There are many constituencies—HR, compliance, internal audit, general counsel, senior leadership, the board—who, depending on the matter, have a legitimate stake in the work and an expectation of being kept appropriately informed as it progresses. These are also partners you will have to rely on to be effective, both inside any given investigation and across the investigations function’s broader work.
Discretion in internal investigations still matters, especially when conducted under legal privilege. Not everyone needs to be briefed, and those who do not necessarily need every fact in real time. But the investigator who reflexively treats stakeholders as outsiders to be managed will often find them unwilling to help when help is what the function needs most. Meet them halfway by working to understand their perspective, and by being open to showing some of the cards you used to keep so close to your chest when in law enforcement.
Know your limits
Finally, the most forward-looking shift: Building the right team around you.
Make no mistake, though, former prosecutors and agents are not just plug-and-play corporate investigators, they are particularly well-suited to adapt to and thrive in the role. But internal matters are often more complex than determining whether a discrete incident of misconduct occurred. A single hotline complaint, for example, can touch HR, mental health, or data privacy across multiple jurisdictions. Successful in-house investigators know where their training and experience end, and they look to surround themselves with team members who bring diverse skills and experiences that cover what their strengths do not.
Which brings us to the bottom-line takeaway from the three panelists: Prosecutors and agents who move in-house benefit from their DOJ playbook, but will only shine once they learn when and why to close it.
Sean Tonolli is a partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, whose practice focuses on government and internal investigations, and compliance advisory. Previously, he was a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice, most recently as the second in charge of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. He led a session on investigations at Compliance Week’s 2026 National Conference, held in May in Washington, D.C.
