If you received an Illinois Attorney General subpoena, investigation letter, or a call from an investigator, assume one thing immediately: this is not a routine request, and it is not a quick explanation situation. Early mistakes, including what you say, what you produce, what you delete, and what you casually clarify, can determine whether this stays narrow or becomes a multi-front problem. This is especially common for business owners, healthcare practices, contractors, and licensed professionals. Essentially, people who can be exposed in both civil and criminal directions at once.
People often react in one of two unhelpful ways. They treat it like customer service, let’s clear this up, or they treat it like a PR crisis, say nothing and hope it dies. An Illinois Attorney General investigation is neither. It’s an enforcement investigation backed by statutory authority and the ability to compel information.
If you read nothing else, read this: Before you explain, cooperate informally, or hand over documents, you need a strategy that assumes the investigation can widen and develop parallel tracks, civil enforcement, licensing or credentialing consequences, and in some matters criminal exposure.
A subpoena or investigative subpoena asking for documents, communications, policies, billing records, marketing materials, contracts, or financial information. These often show up in business investigations, consumer complaints, or regulatory enforcement matters.
A letter that looks informal but is not. It requests information, asks you to preserve documents, or seeks answers about practices. The office frequently has a path to formal compulsion if they decide you are slow-walking or hiding the ball.
A phone call or visit from an investigator. This is where people do the most damage. A friendly conversation can lock you into statements and timelines that get memorialized, compared to documents later, and become the state’s roadmap.
A notice tied to a False Claims Act theory, often healthcare or Medicaid-related, or involving government funds. These can start quietly, and under Illinois’s False Claims Act, qui tam complaints are filed under seal while the State evaluates intervention.
Different entry points, same principle: your first response is evidence.
State’s Attorneys prosecute crimes in counties. The Illinois Attorney General is the state’s chief legal officer with duties defined by statute, including investigating alleged violations of statutes the Attorney General has a duty to enforce, and in some contexts conducting investigations in connection with assisting in criminal prosecution at a State’s Attorney’s request.
Many AG matters start as investigations, not criminal cases. That label makes people careless. They talk, speculate, produce documents out of order, and unintentionally create the knowledge and intent evidence the state later needs.
The Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act declares unfair or deceptive acts in trade or commerce unlawful. This is where investigations often involve advertising claims, billing practices, subscription and renewal practices, disclosures, and representations to consumers. Once you’re in this lane, the real questions become what did you represent, what did you omit, what did customers rely on, and what do your internal documents show about what you knew.
The Illinois False Claims Act matters especially for healthcare providers, contractors, and anyone tied to public funds. It includes the qui tam process where complaints can remain under seal while the State evaluates whether to intervene. This lane can feel civil until it doesn’t. If documents suggest intentional deception or a pattern of billing issues, the posture hardens quickly.
First, the office asks for information and documents. Then they compare what you provide against other sources, including complainants, employees, competitors, third-party vendors, payment processors, and government records. If your early explanation is incomplete, overconfident, or inconsistent with what they later learn, the case often becomes less about the underlying conduct and more about intent, credibility, and concealment.
That’s why the let me clear this up quickly instinct is dangerous. You can unintentionally create a record that looks like a misrepresentation even when you believe you are being transparent.
A healthcare business gets a demand that reads like an audit. Leadership sends spreadsheets and informal explanations. Later, the state reads those explanations as admissions about knowledge and intent, prompting follow-up questions that shift the matter from billing error to billing scheme.
A contractor is accused of misrepresentations in bids or performance. The first instinct is to defend reputation in writing. The state compares that narrative against internal emails, finds inconsistencies, and expands the scope.
A company receives a letter that feels civil, but the documents point to falsified records or deliberate omissions. Now the question is who knew what, when, and how it was documented. In all of these, the early response determines whether the investigation stays narrow or becomes a broader enforcement matter.
Do not start with a narrative. Do not email the Attorney General’s Office a here’s what happened summary. Do not schedule a call to walk them through it. If communication is necessary, it should be controlled, limited, and consistent. It should avoid speculation and volunteering theories.
Preserve information immediately. Treat this as a preservation event. Deletions, altered files, wiped devices, and cleaned-up messaging threads can turn a manageable investigation into a different category of problem.
Get your arms around the scope before you produce. Subpoenas and demands are often broader than they look. Producing without a plan leads to inconsistent productions and missing items, each of which invites follow-up and creates suspicion.
Identify collateral risk early. Many Illinois AG investigations trigger parallel consequences: licensing exposure, credentialing issues, contract termination, employment discipline, and sometimes criminal referral risk. You don’t want to discover the real consequence after you’ve already locked in a damaging record.
Keep it narrow. Don’t volunteer issues outside the request. Don’t create new leads. Keep it consistent: many investigations expand because the story changes. Keep it defensible: if this escalates to civil enforcement, licensing consequences, or referral, your response should still look disciplined and reasonable to a judge, regulator, or prosecutor reading the file later.
An Illinois Attorney General investigation is the opening phase of a government enforcement process. The wrong early response can widen the case. The right early response can keep it contained.
If you have received a subpoena, document demand, or inquiry from the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, you need a response strategy that protects you now and still makes sense if the investigation escalates. Glozman Law represents individuals and businesses facing high-stakes government investigations in Illinois, with a focus on controlling exposure early and avoiding the preventable mistakes that turn inquiries into cases.
Contact Glozman Law for a confidential consultation.
This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Government investigations are fact-specific, and the proper strategy depends on the nature of the inquiry, the governing statutes, and the documents and communications at issue.