March 18, 2026 - In an era when internal investigations routinely unfold under intense public scrutiny, the investigative process itself can determine whether an organization emerges with credibility or deepens the crisis. High-stakes investigations into allegations of misconduct — especially when those allegations are public — cannot be treated as administrative exercises. Rather, they must demonstrate an organization's ethical compass, legal savvy, and commitment to transparency and accountability.
Drawing on professional responsibility guidelines and our experiences guiding organizations through external investigations by prosecutors and regulators, this article offers a practical road map for practitioners conducting sensitive internal investigations and for organizations looking for results that can withstand intense scrutiny.
Credible investigations begin with — and can be sidelined by — critical decisions about independence, preservation of privilege, ethical considerations, and disciplined communications strategy. Considerations such as trauma-informed interviewing, thoughtful selection of investigative team members, and rigorous evidence preservation are equally important. These decisions ultimately shape public confidence in the investigation, the investigators, and the organization.
Independence, methodology, and scope
Investigative credibility is at issue from the time when allegations first surface, particularly in high-profile contexts. An organization's decision to engage investigators with demonstrable independence from the organization and a reputation for thorough, unflinching investigations can help insulate the organization from external stakeholder and media pressure while the investigative process plays out.
Investigative methodology and scope should be defined and memorialized in a written investigative plan that can later be incorporated into any written report that the investigative team provides. A defensible methodology — which typically includes collection and review of potentially relevant documents and other evidence, witness interviews, analysis of relevant statutory frameworks and, ultimately, findings and recommendations — is often the strongest answer to later criticism.
Choosing the right investigative team
In especially sensitive investigations — particularly those involving allegations of abuse, harassment, discrimination, or mistreatment — the composition of the investigative team warrants deliberate attention.
Effective investigations depend in large part on the willingness of witnesses to speak candidly and truthfully, sometimes about matters that involve traumatic or deeply personal experiences. In some cases, a witness may feel more comfortable discussing sensitive details with someone who shares certain lived experiences or demonstrates particular cultural fluency.
For example, in investigations we have conducted, we observed that incarcerated women recounting allegations of abuse seemed to connect well with female investigators, and student-athletes responded well when more junior attorneys were in the room for interviews, even if the junior attorney did not serve as the primary interviewer.
Ensuring that investigative teams include attorneys with whom witnesses can connect and who have experience handling sensitive complaints tends to make witnesses more willing to engage in the process and helps in eliciting meaningful and candid testimony.
Evidence preservation
From the moment allegations surface, whether internally at an organization or in the press, litigation holds and structured document preservation protocols should be implemented. Digital evidence must be preserved with metadata intact, and physical evidence must be cataloged and secured.
Once interviews take place, interview notes and memoranda should be as close to contemporaneous as possible and systematically maintained. In high-profile matters, evidence preservation is often examined as closely as the underlying conduct; a documented and defensible chain of custody can be as important as the findings themselves.
Ethical issues with privilege and confidentiality
Before witness interviews begin, it is important for attorneys leading an investigation to understand the organization's end goals: Will findings and recommendations be maintained internally at the organization, or might a written report (or some portion of it) be publicly released? The answer can inform attorneys' approach to describing the privilege or confidentiality that may attach to witness interviews.
For example, if an organization is seeking to address an issue that it has identified internally and its own employees are being interviewed by its own counsel, the content of those interviews is privileged, and the privilege belongs to the organization. This must be explained to witnesses via an Upjohn warning at the outset of the interview.
On the other hand, if an organization has commissioned an investigation into a publicly reported scandal, for example, and interviews include witnesses with no obligation to maintain confidentiality (e.g., third parties), the interviewer may only request that the witness not share the content of the interview with others.
In that case, the interviewer should assume that any questions they ask during the interview could become public and ensure that their own questions do not implicate any nonpublic information. In some cases, when an investigative report is made public, redactions may be required to protect the identity or personal information of witnesses. Moreover, investigators can insulate vulnerable witnesses by anonymizing their testimony rather than individually attributing it.
In some cases, witnesses request anonymization of their testimony, and investigators must be prepared to make a commitment to the witness (or not) before the witness provides the testimony. In all events, clear communication with the organization regarding the scope of privilege and confidentiality is critical to preserving legal protections and institutional credibility.
Communications strategy
In matters that draw public attention, communications strategy is inseparable from investigative strategy. Statements to employees, regulators, or the press should reflect consistency and respect for the integrity of the process.
Organizations should anticipate scrutiny and communicate proactively about steps taken to ensure independence, fairness, and thoroughness — such as engaging external investigators, assembling appropriately experienced teams, or implementing evidence-preservation measures. Explaining the process can build confidence even before findings are released.
Conclusion: Credibility is built, not declared
In today's legal landscape, every step of an internal investigation may be second-guessed by stakeholders, regulators, or the media. Credibility is not conferred by the final report alone; it is earned through disciplined and documented choices at each stage of the investigative process.
For organizations navigating sensitive, high-profile investigations, the question is not merely whether the investigators' findings are defensible, but also whether the process itself reflects the integrity that stakeholders and the public expect.
Originally published by Reuters
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
