Managing Client Emotions in Forensic Accounting and Fraud Investigation. Stephen Pedneault

Чтение книги онлайн.

CHAPTER 2 Choose to Address Client Emotions

      EXPECT CLIENT EMOTIONS

      Client matters typically start with a phone call, email, or other form of communication requesting fraud‐related services. At my firm, we almost always receive a phone call, an email, or a voice message requesting that we call a prospective client. During that initial call, my staff and I try to get an idea of what the matter involves, along with the names of the parties involved. We perform a procedure we call “triage,” where we complete an intake form to ensure we've captured the party names, attorney names (if attorneys are involved at that point), a short description of the matter, and the issues requiring our services. We then perform a conflict search to ensure that we can be objective and free of any conflicts of interest, such as a relationship to the issues or parties in the matter.

Our forms are saved in a three‐ring binder. If we end up performing services in the case, we move the form into the matter folder. If we don't end up having an initial meeting or are not retained, we save the forms within the original binder. Often, we receive subsequent calls about a potential matter that is surprisingly familiar to us. We then stop the call and scan through our forms, quite often finding that we have received a previous call about the same matter. Unless the caller is the same person who originally called us, we have to inform the new caller that we've received a prior call in which details of the case were shared with us, and for that reason, we have to decline involvement the matter, as a conflict of interest likely exists.

      During the initial call, while we are obtaining a short version of the matter, we also try to gain an understanding of the potential client's emotional state. If the caller has not provided us with details about the other parties and their emotional states (as they often do, unsolicited), we ask about those as part of our triage process. Knowing that every matter has emotional issues, we look for certain key emotions, such as anger and hostility, especially in the parties on the opposing side of the matter. First and foremost, our concern is our safety, and knowing whether one or more parties has anger issues is critical to our well‐being. It's also helpful for us to know when a party with anger issues possesses a weapons permit or hunting interests (these circumstances cause the hairs on our neck to stand up).

      In many cases, the caller is an attorney representing a client. In some other cases, the individuals who call our office represent an organization or are pursuing a personal matter. In those cases, part of our triage process involves instructing the individual to obtain counsel, since my firm's policy is that our services can only be retained through counsel. We do this to establish attorney–client privilege under the attorney work‐product doctrine. We also ask that clients instruct their attorney to call us, once the attorney has been retained, so we can discuss the potential matter and solicit more details.

      When the client's attorney calls, they often describe their client's emotional state. If for some reason they don't, we ask them about emotional states as part of our triage process. When the client has a longstanding relationship with the attorney, we often receive a lot of background detail about the client and their emotional state. However, if the attorney is new to the client, we often are limited to comparing initial notes and impressions and must wait for the initial meeting to gather more detail.

      While obtaining a brief summary of the matter, a fraud examiner should already be thinking about the types of emotions involved in the potential matter – not just the client's emotions, but the emotions of other parties involved as well. A fraud examiner can often predict the likely emotions to be encountered based on the limited facts provided, as well as how long the potential matter has been going on. The duration of the matter up to that point is often a good predictor of the emotional state of the parties.

If the potential matter has just been discovered or initiated, we often encounter denial or anger. If the matter has been pending for months or even years, the range of potential emotions can be much greater. As I discuss later in the book, individuals involved in financial matters requiring a fraud examiner often experience similar emotional states to people going through the grieving process (e.g., denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance). Depending on the timeline of the matter, the fraud examiner may be able to estimate the parties’ emotional states. (I choose the word “estimate” rather than “predict,” as I have sometimes been surprised to see the client's actual emotional state when we meet.)

      Where practical, the fraud examiner should begin every new matter with an initial in‐person meeting. If the potential client cannot meet in person, the examiner should set up a virtual call. It's important for the fraud examiner to see the potential client, to visually assess them while listening to them talk. In these meetings, an experienced fraud examiner can gain a sense of the client's emotional state and size up whether they want to work with them. The same holds true in meeting an attorney. My firm has walked away from many great cases because we didn't want to work with a client or their attorney based on an impression we picked up on during the meeting.

      In a few rare instances, my firm has lost a referral source for declining our involvement in a potential matter, but experience has shown me that I need to trust my instincts. When my sixth sense tells me something isn't right about an individual or a matter, I know I need to walk away. In some cases, I need to run. That turned out to be the case in the following story, where my instincts alerted me to something “not right” in the client's story.

      I had scheduled a meeting with an attorney I'd worked with on past cases, regarding a matter where employees were stealing funds from an organization. As I regularly do, I brought someone from my office with me so the two of us could listen to the potential matter, assess emotional states, ask questions, and take notes. Often, the person I bring is the person who will work on the matter with me, so they can hear things firsthand right from the inception.

      When we arrived, we met the attorney and several individuals who were sitting at a conference table. As the attorney introduced us to his clients, each expressed how excited they were to meet us and to gain our help in resolving their matter.

After the introductions, one of the individuals sitting at the head of the table identified himself as the executive director. He started talking about the organization, what it did, the locations that it had, the systems that it used … all to provide us background on the issues he was about to describe. He identified one particular location where he and the others in the meeting believed employees had been diverting funds. The primary people running the location were all related to each other: a husband and wife, their children, and other relatives. The executive director described the system that was used at the location, along with СКАЧАТЬ