Choosing who will investigate a sensitive case is itself a risk decision: the resulting file will be the company’s defense or its weakness. The market offers everything from serious practices to improvisation on letterhead. These seven questions separate one from the other, and the right answers are verifiable.
A serious investigator can show a documented methodological framework: phases, interview protocols, evidence handling, report structure. If the method "lives in the experience" but not on paper, there is no way to audit it or defend it before a third party.
The technical question almost nobody asks and that reveals the most. Are conclusions issued under preponderance of the evidence, reasonable conviction, or another standard? Is that standard stated in the report? A report that concludes without saying what yardstick it measured against is an opinion, not a determination.
In many firms, a partner sells and the junior team investigates. Ask to know, by name, who will conduct the key interviews and who will sign the report, and what experience that person has in the specific matter (harassment is not fraud; fraud is not conflict of interest).
Before accepting the case, does the provider check its relationships with the parties, the company and its advisors? Has it ever declined a case because impartiality could not be guaranteed? A provider that has never declined a case over conflict has probably never looked for one.
Initial response, investigation plan, estimated closure. The region’s legal deadlines do not wait for the provider. Distrust anyone who will not commit to timelines; distrust equally anyone who promises express closures without knowing the case.
The right answer: you do, complete and traceable. Some providers retain the file as a dependency mechanism. The file is the company’s documentary defense and must remain in its hands, with the provider keeping only what the law requires.
The final and definitive question: if the case reaches trial, can the person who signed appear and defend the methodology and findings under examination? An investigator unwilling to stand behind their work under cross-examination is telling you something about that work.
None of these questions is uncomfortable for a serious provider; all of them are for the improviser. That asymmetry is exactly the point: use them.
Thirty minutes with the firm’s leadership, at no cost: we review your situation against what the law already requires.
Book a diagnosticThis site sets no tracking cookies and no advertising analytics. The only thing stored, in your own browser, is the record that you read this notice. Consistent with our privacy notice.