Criminal Defense Lawyers

OIG Wants to Interview Me About My Government Job – What Should I Do

You received a call or a message. The Office of Inspector General wants to interview you. Its about your government job. Your first reaction is probably confusion – you havent done anything wrong. Maybe irritation – why are they bothering you? Heres the first thing you need to understand: by the time OIG contacts you for an interview, the investigation has already been running for weeks or months. They didnt just start looking into something. They’ve been looking. Theyve been gathering documents. They’ve been interviewing your coworkers. The reason they’re calling you now is because youre probably the last person they want to talk to – not the first.

Welcome to Spodek Law Group. We handle federal employee defense cases regularly, including cases were clients first learn theyre under investigation through exactly this kind of OIG interview request. The second thing you need to understand is this: the question isnt “why does OIG want to talk to me.” The question is “what kind of warning will they give me when I sit down.” Because that warning – Garrity or Kalkines – determines everything about your situation. It tells you wheather your facing potential criminal prosecution or administrative discipline. It tells you wheather you have to answer questions or can refuse. It tells you what happens if you stay silent.

Heres something most federal employees dont realize about OIG investigations. There are over 73 Offices of Inspector General across the federal government. Every major agency has one. Every department has investigative authority over its employees, contractors, and grant recipients. When your OIG calls, they have criminal, civil, AND administrative jurisdiction. This isnt just an HR matter. This is potentialy much more serious.

The Two Warnings That Determine Everything

Heres the paradox that confuses every federal employee who gets called into an OIG interview. You have a duty to cooperate with investigations as a condition of your federal employment. But you also have Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. These two things seem to contradict each other – and they do. The warning you recieve tells you which one applies to your situation.

Garrity Warning means the interview is voluntary. You do not have to answer questions. You will not be disciplined solely for refusing to cooperate. But – and this is critical – anything you say CAN be used against you in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings. If you choose to talk after recieving a Garrity warning, your words can send you to prison.

Kalkines Warning means the interview is compelled. You MUST answer questions as a condition of your employment. If you refuse, you can be fired for non-cooperation – even if the underlying allegations are completly false. But your answers cannot be used against you in criminal proceedings. You have criminal immunity for what you say.

Heres the irony that most people miss. Getting the Kalkines warning – the one that gives you criminal immunity – is actually worse news then getting Garrity. Because Kalkines means DOJ has already reviewed the case and declined to prosecute. The criminal investigation is over. But the administrative investigation is just beginning – and you have no choice but to participate.

What the Garrity Warning Really Means

If OIG gives you a Garrity warning, heres what that tells you about your situation. The Department of Justice hasnt decided yet wheather to prosecute. Your case is still potentialy criminal. The interview is “voluntary” – meaning you can refuse to answer – because the government cant force you to incriminate yourself.

But heres the hidden connection nobody explains. The reason the interview is voluntary is because theyre still considering criminal charges. If there was no criminal exposure, they wouldnt need to make it voluntary. They could compel your testimony. The “voluntary” nature of the interview is actualy a warning sign that your in more serious trouble then you might realize.

Think about what that means. If you agree to talk after recieving a Garrity warning, every word you say can be used against you in federal court. If you misremember something and say it incorrectly, thats potentially a false statement. If you try to minimize your involvement, thats potentially obstruction. If you inadvertantly reveal something they didnt know, youve just helped them build there case.

The “voluntary” Garrity interview dosent feel voluntary at all. Your sitting in a room with federal investigators. Your career is on the line. Your security clearance might be at stake. Refusing to cooperate feels impossible. But cooperating could mean criminal prosecution. This is exactly why you need an attorney before saying a single word.

What the Kalkines Warning Really Means

If OIG gives you a Kalkines warning, heres what that tells you about your situation. A federal prosecutor has already reviewed the case and decided NOT to pursue criminal charges. You have immunity for anything you say – your statements cant be used against you in criminal court. But you MUST answer questions, and you MUST tell the truth.

Refusing to answer after a Kalkines warning is itself grounds for termination. You can be fired not for the underlying misconduct, but for the simple act of refusing to cooperate. The government gave you immunity. In exchange, they expect answers. If you dont provide them, your fired.

Heres the consequence cascade that destroys federal employees who dont understand this. They recieve a Kalkines warning. They think “immunity means I’m protected.” So they refuse to answer, or they answer incompletly, or they lie. Refusing gets them terminated for non-cooperation. Lying gets them prosecuted for false statements – which is a SEPERATE crime not covered by the immunity. Either way, there career is over.

The immunity under Kalkines protects you from your own words being used criminally. It does NOT protect you from administrative consequences. Everything you say can still be used to fire you, demote you, suspend you, or revoke your clearance. And it does NOT protect you from new crimes you commit during the interview – like lying.

How OIG Investigations Actually Work

Heres something you need to understand about how OIG built the case theyre asking you about. By the time they call you, the investigation is probly almost complete.

OIG investigations begin with allegations. Sometimes from coworkers who report misconduct. Sometimes from supervisors. Sometimes from audits that reveal irregularities. Sometimes from other federal agencies that find your name connected to suspicious activity. The source of the allegation is confidential – you will never be told who reported you.

The preliminary investigation happens without your knowledge. OIG reviews documents. They pull your emails. They examine your work computer. They review your financial records if relevant. They interview witnesses – your coworkers, your supervisors, people you interact with. All of this happens before you know anything is wrong.

By the time they call you for an interview, they already have a theory of the case. They know what they beleive happened. They have evidence supporting there theory. What they want from you is confirmation – or inconsistencies they can use against you. You’re not being interviewed to help them figure out what happened. Youre being interviewed because they already think they know.

This is why the order of interviews matters. In federal investigations, the target is typicaly interviewed last. If your the first person OIG calls, your probly a witness. If your the last person they call – after talking to everyone around you – your probly the subject or target. The timing tells you something about your status.

The Cases That Show Whats At Stake

If you think OIG investigations are just bureaucratic exercises that end in reprimands, look at what actualy happens to federal employees who are investigated.

Roudy Pierre-Louis was a budget analyst at the U.S. Embassy in Haiti. Between 2015 and 2018, he forged the names of military commanders on vouchers to obtain cash from the Embassy. OIG investigated. He was sentenced to over a year in federal prison and ordered to pay $156,950 in restitution.

Katrin Verclas recieved 728 days in federal prison – over two years – for obstruction of a federal audit. Not the underlying misconduct. The obstruction. Her corporation agreed to pay $500,000 to settle related civil claims. Lying to federal investigators dosent make the problem go away. It makes everything exponentialy worse.

Charles “Chuck” Jones ran an E-Rate fraud scheme for ten years before OIG caught up with him. He defrauded the program of aproximately $6.9 million. When investigations like this succeed, federal prosecutors pursue them aggressively.

The E-Rate fraud ring involved seven defendants who conspired to defraud an FCC program. Combined sentences: 147 months in prison. Combined restitution: $2.6 million. These arnt minor consequences.

More recently, Danielle Hillmer – a senior manager at a government contractor – was indicted for cybersecurity fraud. She faces up to 20 years for wire fraud, 10 years for major government fraud, and 5 years for each count of obstruction. Potential sentence: 35 years.

The Criminal vs Administrative Split

Heres something about OIG jurisdiction that confuses federal employees. The same investigation can result in criminal prosecution, administrative discipline, or both. The outcomes arnt mutually exclusive.

Criminal prosecution happens when OIG refers the case to DOJ and DOJ accepts it. If convicted, you face prison, fines, and a federal criminal record. The burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” – the highest standard in American law.

Administrative discipline happens regardless of wheather DOJ prosecutes. Your agency can fire you, suspend you, demote you, or revoke your clearance based on the same conduct. The burden of proof is only “preponderance of evidence” – meaning more likely then not. Its much easier to fire you administratively then to convict you criminaly.

Heres the uncomfortable truth about this split. Even if DOJ declines to prosecute – even if theyre not confident they can prove criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt – your agency can still fire you. The administrative process has lower standards. Federal employees have been terminated for conduct that never resulted in criminal charges. Getting a Kalkines warning (which means DOJ declined prosecution) dosent mean your safe. It just means prison is off the table. Your job might still be gone.

The Lie That Makes Everything Worse

Heres what happens to federal employees who try to minimize, deflect, or lie during OIG interviews. They turn a survivable situation into a catastrophic one.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes lying to federal investigators a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. You dont have to be under oath. You dont have to be in a formal proceeding. A lie in an interview room is a federal offense. And heres the devastating part: even if your immunity protects you from prosecution for the underlying conduct, it does NOT protect you from prosecution for lying during the interview. Lying is a new crime, commited after the immunity attached.

Think about what that means. You could be under investigation for something relatively minor – something that might have resulted in a suspension or demotion. You lie during the interview to minimize your involvement. Now youve committed a federal felony. The original misconduct might have been administratively resolved. The lie sends you to prison.

OIG investigators are trained to ask questions that create opportunities for inconsistent statements. They already have documents. They already have witness testimony. They know what they beleive happened. When they ask you questions, they’re often testing whether youll tell the truth. If your story contradicts the evidence they’ve gathered, they have to decide wheather you made an honest mistake or intentionally lied. Intentional lies become seperate charges.

What You Cannot Do During This Process

Heres what federal employees do when they learn about an OIG investigation. They panic. And panicking leads to decisions that make everything worse.

Do NOT contact coworkers to discuss the investigation. If your phones or emails are monitored – and they might be – coordination with witnesses looks like obstruction or witness tampering. If you ask coworkers what they told OIG, thats potentialy criminal interference with an investigation.

Do NOT try to destroy or modify documents. Your work computer belongs to the federal government. Your emails are government property. Your files are government records. Destroying, deleting, or modifying them is obstruction of justice – a crime that can result in years in federal prison. And heres the hidden connection: OIG probly already has copies of everything. Destruction proves consciousness of guilt while accomplishing nothing.

Do NOT resign thinking that will end the investigation. OIG investigations continue even after employees leave federal service. Resigning dosent stop the criminal referral. Resigning dosent prevent DOJ from prosecuting you. And resigning eliminates your access to certain appeal processes. Sometimes resignation is the right choice. But its a decision that should be made strategicaly with legal counsel – not in panic.

Do NOT talk to anyone about the investigation except your attorney. Not your spouse. Not your union rep (before consulting an attorney). Not your supervisor. Anyone you talk to can be compelled to testify about what you said. Only attorney-client communications are protected.

The Security Clearance Complication

Heres something federal employees with security clearances need to understand. An OIG investigation dosent just threaten your job. It threatens your clearance – and losing your clearance can end your career in ways that extend far beyond your current position.

Security clearance adjudicators consider the “whole person” when making decisions. Being under OIG investigation – even if no charges result – becomes part of your record. Failing to cooperate with an investigation raises questions about reliability and trustworthiness. Lying during an investigation is disqualifying conduct. Every aspect of how you handle this situation can affect your clearance status.

Many federal jobs require security clearances. If you lose your clearance, you lose your position – not because of discipline, but because you no longer qualify. And clearance revocation can follow you. Other agencies, other contractors, other positions that require clearances – all of them will see that your clearance was revoked. Your options narrow dramaticaly.

The intersection of OIG investigation and clearance adjudication creates additional complexity. Even if you successfully appeal an adverse employment action through MSPB, your clearance may have already been revoked through a seperate process. Winning the employment battle dosent automatically restore the clearance. These are different systems with different rules.

The Union Representation Question

Heres something that confuses many federal employees. If your a bargaining unit member, you may have Weingarten rights – the right to union representation during investigative interviews. But Weingarten rights and the right to an attorney arnt the same thing.

Under Weingarten, you can request a union representative be present during any interview that you reasonably believe might result in disciplinary action. The investigator cannot deny this request if your covered. But a union representative is not an attorney. They can provide support and witness the interview – but they cant give you legal advice or protect your criminal defense rights.

Having both a union rep and an attorney is possible in many situations. Your union rep understands the employment context, the workplace dynamics, the contractual protections. Your attorney understands the legal implications, the criminal exposure, the strategic considerations. They serve different functions.

But heres the critical point. You should consult with an attorney BEFORE the interview – before you decide whether to participate, before you decide what to say, before you understand what warning youll receive. The union rep can accompany you to the interview. The attorney helps you prepare for it and understand the consequences.

Your Appeal Rights If Discipline Happens

Heres something about the administrative process that federal employees should understand. If OIG recommends discipline and your agency agrees, you have appeal rights – but you have to exercise them correctly.

For adverse actions – removal, suspension over 14 days, or demotion – you can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Before the MSPB, youll have discovery rights. Youll be able to obtain evidence the agency relied on. Youll have a hearing before an administrative judge. If you lose, you can appeal to the full MSPB, and ultimatly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

But these appeal rights only help if you havent already destroyed your case. If you lied during the OIG interview, the lie becomes evidence against you. If you obstructed the investigation, thats a seperate basis for discipline. If you resigned in panic, you may have forfeited certain protections. The appeal process can overturn unjust decisions – but it cant fix self-inflicted wounds.

What You Should Do Right Now

If OIG has requested an interview about your government job, heres exactly what you should do:

Do NOT agree to an immediate interview. You can ask for time to consult with an attorney. You can request a reasonable delay. Do not let anyone pressure you into sitting down without legal representation.

Contact a federal employment attorney immediatly. Not a general practice lawyer. Someone who understands OIG investigations, Garrity and Kalkines warnings, and the federal employment process. Your attorney can contact OIG, learn more about the investigation, and advise you on strategy before you say a single word.

Gather information about your situation. What do you think this might be about? Have there been problems at work? Have coworkers been interviewed? Has your supervisor mentioned anything unusual? Understanding the potential scope helps your attorney prepare.

Do NOT discuss the investigation with anyone except your attorney. Not coworkers. Not family. Not friends. Everyone except your attorney can be compelled to testify about your conversations.

Todd Spodek tells every federal employee in this situation the same thing: an OIG interview request is not a casual conversation. Its a formal step in a federal investigation that could affect your career, your clearance, and potentialy your freedom. The warning you recieve – Garrity or Kalkines – determines what rights you have and what risks you face. You need to understand your situation before you say anything.

Call Spodek Law Group at 212-300-5196. Before you schedule the interview. Before you sit down with investigators. Before you say something that cant be unsaid.

That interview request is sitting in your inbox. What you do next matters enormosly.