Investigative work performed for litigation operates under a constraint that commercial diligence does not: every finding may have to withstand adversarial scrutiny. That constraint should shape the engagement from the first day, not from the moment a challenge arrives.
Evidence is not made admissible retrospectively.
It is either collected in a defensible way or it is not.
Custody and Documentation
Chain of custody is the foundation. Every document should carry a record of where it came from, when it was obtained, by whom, and how it has been handled since.
This sounds procedural because it is. It is also the most common point of failure, and it fails quietly: nobody notices the gap until opposing counsel does.
Methodology as Evidence
When findings are challenged, the method is examined as closely as the conclusion.
- Documented Search Parameters
What was searched, across which sources, over what period, and why those boundaries were chosen. - Source Attribution
Each factual assertion traceable to an identified source, with the basis for relying on it. - Negative Findings
What was searched and not found is frequently as significant as what was located. - Analyst Reasoning
The inferential steps between raw material and stated conclusion, made explicit rather than implied.
Working With Counsel
Privilege considerations shape how work is structured, scoped and communicated. Engagement through counsel, clear instruction, and disciplined communication practices all matter.
The investigator's role is to produce reliable material and describe its limits accurately. Overstating a finding damages the case more than the finding helps it.
