You are a junior counsel at Eastern Logistics, a manufacturer of aircraft navigation systems. A whistleblower in the firm alleges that the company is conspiring with its chief competitor to fix the prices of its products. Your boss, the chief counsel, tasks you with conducting an internal investigation of the allegations. Your preliminary investigation gives you reason to suspect that the CEO may have had personal involvement in criminal conduct. You know that the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will give leniency in price fixing cases to companies that are the first to come forward and provide help to the Department in prosecuting other conspirators. You believe that this may be the best option for your company. However, when you present the idea to the general counsel she emphatically vetoes the proposal on the ground that “we have not done anything wrong.” You believe that the general counsel’s response might be motivated more by a concern for protecting the CEO than a wish to serve the best interests of the company: If the company comes forward to admit involvement in a criminal antitrust conspiracy, the CEO is likely to lose her job and may not receive the same exemption from prosecution that the Division is likely to give to the company.