SJ Interview: Christine Braamskamp

Christine Braamskamp is the Managing Partner of Jenner & Block’s London office and co-leads the firm’s Investigations, Compliance and Defense practice. With a career that spans criminal law, white-collar defence and major cross-border matters, she has long worked at the intersection of UK, US and European enforcement.

In this interview, she discusses how the investigations landscape has evolved, the practical realities of multijurisdictional cases, emerging culture-risk issues, the implications of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, and the growing influence of AI and geopolitics on corporate investigations.

You co-lead Jenner & Block’s Investigations, Compliance and Defense practice and handle major cross-border cases. What drew you to this area, and how has it evolved over time?

My background was in criminal law. I did my first law degree in the Netherlands, and that was focused on criminal law. Then I practised for a number of years here in England, and then decided to go to the Bar and practise criminal law at the Bar. That then evolved into white-collar crime.

So I started with, if you like, the street crime: the guns, drugs, sex offences, murders, assaults. I then eventually moved into doing white-collar work. You do a fraud case, and suddenly you’re moving more and more into that area because it’s super interesting. Eventually I ended up doing much cross-border work.

My involvement in cross-border matters began because I’m from the Netherlands, where I earned my first qualification. After moving here, I became accustomed to navigating the differences between civil law and common law systems. When I joined an American law firm, it wasn’t long before all my work took on a cross-border focus, it’s simply how things evolved.

Regarding the evolution over time, many changes have been driven by the leadership of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and their respective priorities. During my career, which spans three decades, ten years focused on general crime and the following twenty on financial crime, I have observed the SFO under the direction of Richard Alderman, David Green, Lisa Osofsky, and currently Nick Ephgrave.

Under Richard Alderman's tenure, objectives were less transparent and preceded the introduction of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs); consequently, our work primarily involved civil recovery orders. David Green subsequently emphasized the importance of self-reporting, advising: “Do not interfere with active investigations; collaborate with us regarding your internal reviews.” This period was characterised by disputes concerning Section 2 notices, particularly for multinational corporations, and ongoing debates over legal privilege.

Lisa Osofsky introduced a robust, US-influenced enforcement approach. The current director, Nick Ephgrave, appears to be highly focused on addressing UK white-collar crime, fostering strong working relationships with French and Swiss authorities, and establishing efficient communication channels.

Additionally, clients have traditionally expressed the greatest concern regarding the actions of the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), although these priorities have shifted considerably in recent years. Consequently, legal practice in this area has adapted according to the prevailing agendas of key enforcement bodies.

With regulators working more closely together across borders, what are the main challenges for clients when dealing with investigations in several jurisdictions at once?

Obvious issues arise when different countries have conflicting laws and approaches to problem-solving; what constitutes privilege in one nation might mean something entirely different elsewhere. Yet, I believe that one of the biggest obstacles, especially during extensive investigations, is ensuring cooperation among the various law firms involved.

Take Airbus as an example (although I wasn’t personally involved). The General Counsel there achieved remarkable success by effectively managing relationships with all the different law firms he enlisted. Building this trust is essential. When agencies like the SFO seem to be taking the lead, you may find yourself worrying about other jurisdictions, such as France, Brazil, or Switzerland. It’s natural to want to protect your own part of the investigation, but it’s crucial to collaborate openly and build trust with lawyers from other regions—they’re also striving for the best outcome for their client. You simply can’t achieve this working alone.

Poor collaboration leads to friction, ultimately disadvantaging the client and driving up costs. You might end up with huge, unwieldy conference calls where everyone tries to speak, dragging out meetings to the client’s detriment.

Clients should work closely with their primary law firm to make sure all the others can cooperate smoothly. Without mutual trust, each jurisdiction might try to push its own strategy, which creates problems elsewhere. Since perfect alignment is impossible, finding common ground and fostering collaboration is vital for moving forward successfully.

You’ve often highlighted “culture risk.” How are companies addressing cultural issues as part of their compliance efforts?

Our work on corporate culture really took off in early 2020 during the Covid pandemic. That period saw companies increasing their investment in whistleblower hotlines, hiring more staff to handle complaints, and paying closer attention to employee concerns—recognising these factors can affect performance.

Covid also coincided with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and heightened scrutiny of non-financial misconduct. Issues like sexual harassment and assault in the workplace started receiving more focus, rather than being overlooked in favor of financial misconduct, which is seen as more tangible and easier to measure.

Traditionally, cultural issues were brushed aside with an attitude of “just keep moving,” but now it’s clear that a healthy corporate culture is essential for achieving company goals. Up until a year ago, culture was still a top priority in company reporting, regardless of business size.

Recently, however, differences in US and European legislation have become particularly pronounced. Shifting rhetoric and enforcement in the US, including renewed focus on historical laws, have created legal conflicts—especially over gender diversity, protections against sexual misconduct, and diversity targets. These issues are pulling companies in different directions.

Organisations operating internationally, and especially those holding US federal contracts, now face conflicting requirements. Some US laws call for eliminating so-called “unlawful DEI practices,” though what constitutes “unlawful” remains unclear. At the same time, they must follow strict laws in Europe and elsewhere.

This clash has made managing non-financial misconduct and culture risk even more challenging. With limited budgets, organisations may prioritise addressing offenses like fraud, which are more straightforward to identify and discuss, instead of tackling abstract issues like toxic workplace culture.

However, toxic cultures directly contribute to compliance breaches, including bribery, because employees feel unable to report problems. I’ve seen cases where unhealthy environments escalated into serious issues simply because no one trusted the system enough to speak up.

The current global environment adds further complexity. Even if new US rules don’t affect your organisation directly, there can be many indirect consequences. Some firms react by changing their DEI programs worldwide, while others adapt only in the US. It’s important to assess your actual legal risks: without US federal contracts, adjustments might be minimal, but involvement in a supply chain with such contracts could still expose you to risk.

If your company is publicly supportive and proud of its DEI initiatives, you may be vulnerable to these shifting legal landscapes. Navigating this complexity is difficult, and I don’t envy those tasked with figuring it out.

In internal investigations, how do you balance getting to the facts with protecting privilege and managing reputational risk?

When a law firm investigates facts, most of its work product is protected by privilege. However, this privilege can be challenged during internal investigation interviews, which may not be protected in certain cases. For instance, if the Serious Fraud Office requests these interviews, you would have to provide them.

Managing reputational risk depends on the type of investigation. Sometimes an investigation must be made public, especially if the company is already known to have internal issues and needs to explain their actions and results openly. In such situations, you conduct the investigation knowing some information will eventually reach the public. This is very different from a privileged investigation where confidentiality remains, at least until the board decides how to proceed based on your findings.

The BBC’s recent experience is a good example. When Lewis Silkin conducted the investigation into Greg Wallace, it was expected that the public would want answers, so the approach had to reflect that reality.

Fact-finding usually retains privilege if you’re careful about defining who the client is, who issues instructions, how communications are handled, and what your engagement letter outlines. Under these conditions, you can help manage reputational risk—except when a whistleblower contacts the media, making everything public.

At that point, crisis management becomes essential. You must think about insurance, litigation, regulatory concerns, and all possible risks. It’s important to assemble the right team for the client, as no single person can handle every risk. Just like on a rugby team, everyone plays a specific role, and together they cover the entire risk landscape.

How is the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act changing the way companies think about liability and compliance?

The Act introduces two key changes. First is the new failure-to-prevent fraud offence. While not entirely straightforward, it resembles how companies have traditionally handled fraud in internal risk assessments, except now it targets external fraud. This means compliance programs need to be adjusted.

Second is the reform of corporate criminal liability. Previously, only those who were the “directing mind and will” of a company could be held liable. Now, this liability extends more broadly to senior management. It’s no longer necessary to pinpoint a single person at the top orchestrating everything; responsibility can be found further down within the organization.

As a result, companies are reassessing their approach to risk and liability.

This shift has increased pressure on companies, especially since global corporations have often been most concerned about the DOJ and SEC—due to their hefty fines and different systems for case resolution. If these US authorities are currently less focused on certain issues and the SFO is still gaining momentum, companies may question what the actual risk of enforcement is.

A joint effort between Swiss, French, and British enforcement bodies, or a prompt prosecution led by Nick Ephgrave concerning failure-to-prevent fraud or senior management liability, would certainly draw strong attention from companies.

Historically, the SFO has faced challenges: it has secured only a handful of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs), with none since 2021/2022, and individual prosecutions have struggled due to disclosure problems, causing some significant cases to collapse.

Next year, five major trials are scheduled, including Glencore (which has pleaded not guilty), Petrofac 2, Entain Group, and others. If some of these cases result in convictions, companies will take notice—especially if individual liability becomes a renewed focus. A string of successful prosecutions after years of failures would truly capture corporate attention.

AI clearly plays a major role in your practice. How do you see AI affecting investigations and the legal sector?

Artificial intelligence presents significant opportunities for advancement; however, the implementation of robust compliance programs is essential given the importance of data privacy laws and the potential risks associated with compromised outputs. The impact of AI varies between law firms and corporations, necessitating considerable investment from both sectors.

A noteworthy aspect is that AI may facilitate greater equity in billing practices, particularly regarding hourly rates. It will likely be necessary to reconsider pricing structures for services conducted with AI involvement. For example, the combined value of a brief AI task and subsequent partner-level analysis could prove highly consequential for clients, warranting a bespoke pricing model rather than one based solely on time spent.

AI-driven document review will dramatically increase efficiency, resulting in substantial cost savings for clients. Consequently, investigations and advisory work may require new approaches to pricing. This evolution benefits the legal market overall.

Traditional hourly-rate models often present challenges for mid- to senior-level professionals managing both career progression and family responsibilities, especially as caregiving duties historically fall more heavily on women—though this dynamic is evolving. Both men and women stand to benefit from compensation models prioritizing outputs over hours worked, supporting more equitable pathways to partnership.

While much attention centres on AI’s immediate effects on work processes, it is important to recognize the broader, indirect advantages it can offer. These factors collectively underscore the transformative potential of artificial intelligence within the profession.

Apart from AI, what trends do you think will shape the next generation of corporate investigations?

The political climate will have an increasing influence on corporate investigations. For example, current US government priorities and funding—largely directed towards American firms or those with substantial operations in the US—often determine where regulations are enforced. Enforcement focus typically aligns with the agenda of whoever holds power. In my own 30-year career, particularly over the last two decades working in white-collar and cross-border matters, I’ve seen that leadership shifts directly impact how these investigations unfold. Political dynamics, including tariffs, sanctions laws, and regions prone to questionable activity, play a crucial role. Geopolitical developments will remain a key factor shaping future investigations.

What skills or qualities do lawyers now need to succeed in these areas, especially with all the changes taking place?

Traditionally, legal professionals could advance in their careers by diligently focusing on their immediate responsibilities. However, the emerging generation of lawyers must now adopt a broader perspective and remain attuned to global developments.

Building strong professional relationships is increasingly vital. In cross-border matters, effective collaboration among all parties is essential to best serve the client’s interests.

Looking ahead, practitioners will need to formulate not only the right queries for AI tools but, most importantly, to ask clients insightful questions regarding their objectives, requirements, and perspectives. The ability to interpret and communicate both AI-generated insights and legal implications in a manner that is meaningful and actionable for clients will be paramount.

Achieving this demands enhanced empathy and a more outward-facing approach than was previously necessary, when career progression often relied on individual diligence alone. As artificial intelligence assumes responsibility for routine tasks, human attributes such as relationship-building, communication, and emotional intelligence will become even more important, complementing technical expertise. Ensuring the responsible use of AI is also crucial. The legal profession is at a pivotal moment of evolution.