> according to a report compiled by a law firm investigating the incident. The law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, was hired by Cruise to determine whether its executives misled regulators
This is why lawyers are so expensive. Totally worth the money in this case to hire an "independent" auditor.
Especially this quote from the ”Summary of Principal Findings and Conclusions”: “The reasons for Cruise’s failings in this instance are numerous: poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, lack of coordination, an “us versus them” mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of Cruise’s obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and the public. Cruise must take decisive steps to address these issues in order to restore trust and credibility.”
The unstated allegation is that they weren't hired for a warm endorsement, but to assuage the regulator and the public.
If that were true, you could expect certain things, such as casting blame towards folks who have left for company culture, or framing issues with informing the regulator as technical difficulties (eg, instead of deliberate malfeasance).
That the resulting report aligns with such expectations isn't proof - but it might raise an eyebrow here or there.
This is why lawyers are so expensive. Totally worth the money in this case to hire an "independent" auditor.