Thoughts from a Non-Lawyer‑Lawyer Investigator

Guest Author: Bob Stenhouse, Veritas Solutions

After more than four decades conducting investigations—fifteen of those years specializing in organized crime and homicide undercover, followed by regulatory and workplace contexts—I have learned to be cautious about certainty. Investigations have a way of humbling even the most experienced professionals. They are rarely black and white. They often expose the good, the bad, and the ugly of the human condition.

As an investigator, I have found that the work rewards curiosity, patience, and restraint far more than confidence. To reach a legally defensible finding, an investigation requires careful analysis, procedural fairness, and an impartial, if sometimes stoic, approach to discerning interpersonal conflict and abuse.

In recent years, I have worked closely with many skilled lawyers. Some conduct investigations themselves; many others retain an investigator, like our firm, to do so. What stands out is not a lack of intelligence or commitment. It is the natural tension that can arise when legal training meets investigative purpose.

Law and Investigation Serve Different Functions

Legal practice is shaped by advocacy. Lawyers are trained to advance positions, test weaknesses, and protect their clients’ interests. These skills are essential within the legal system and serve it well.

Workplace investigations are shaped by a different responsibility. Their purpose is to determine what most likely occurred and to explain that conclusion in a way that is transparent, reasoned, and fair. Credibility depends as much on process as it does on outcome. When investigative work drifts toward advocacy—even unintentionally—the integrity of the process can be questioned. This is not about ethics or intent. It is about role.

Fairness Must Be Demonstrable

One of the most common things I hear, often said with genuine sincerity, is: “I treated both parties fairly.”

That belief is usually honest. In practice, fairness must also be visible and traceable throughout the investigation. It needs to be evident in how evidence is gathered, how credibility is assessed, and how conclusions are reached and explained. An investigation’s integrity rests not only on the investigator’s intent, but on whether the reasoning can be followed by someone who was not present for the work.

Every credibility assessment, evidentiary preference, and conclusion should be capable of being understood by an external reader: an arbitrator, a judge, a regulator, or a deeply dissatisfied participant. When reasoning is not clearly articulated, investigations become vulnerable, regardless of how carefully the work was done.

I have seen well-intentioned investigations unravel because the logic lived only in the investigator’s mind. Where explanations are incomplete or absent, decision‑makers will inevitably fill in the gaps themselves, and they rarely do so generously. Transparency in reasoning is not an administrative task. It is central to fairness and defensibility.

Understanding How People Experience Harm

Many workplace investigations involve allegations of harassment, discrimination, or abuse. These are not sterile events. They affect how people remember, speak, and respond.

Traditional questioning techniques, particularly those borrowed from adversarial settings, can unintentionally distort evidence. They can also retraumatize participants, undermining both the quality of the information gathered and the legitimacy of the process.

This is not about being soft. It is about being accurate, empathetic, and humane. Challenging and difficult questions still need to be asked, and they can be asked while maintaining dignity and respect throughout an interview.

Over time, I have learned that how questions are asked often matters as much as which questions are asked.

Independence and the Evolution of Investigative Practice

There was a time when lawyers were the default choice to conduct workplace investigations. That is no longer the case. Organizations today are increasingly separating legal advice from investigative fact ‑finding. Independence is not a buzzword; it is a risk-management strategy. The appearance of neutrality now carries as much weight as neutrality itself.

This shift is not an indictment of lawyers. It is a signal. Investigative credibility has become its own professional discipline, with its own expectations, competencies, and scrutiny.

This issue was recently addressed by an arbitrator in Toronto Metropolitan Faculty Association v. Toronto Metropolitan University (2024 CanLII 109523). Arbitrator Hart emphasized that workplace investigations conducted under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act must demonstrate independence, impartiality, and objectivity—both in fact and in appearance.

The central concern in that case was not that the investigators were lawyers. It was the role they were asked to perform. They were retained and presented as the university’s lawyers while also being expected to act as neutral investigators. The arbitrator concluded that this dual role created a reasonable apprehension of bias, regardless of whether the investigations were conducted fairly.

As the decision observed, the responsibilities owed by a lawyer to a client—loyalty, confidentiality, and advancing the client’s interests—are fundamentally difficult to reconcile with the role of a neutral investigator.

A Continuing Opportunity

Investigations rarely leave everyone satisfied. Disappointment is common. Quality is measured instead by whether the process was fair, defensible, and worthy of trust.

After forty years in this work, I continue to learn. That ongoing learning has shaped how I approach investigations, how I lead, and how I teach. It remains one of the most important qualifications the work demands.

My colleague, lawyer Lauren Hanon, and I are pleased to lead Advanced Workplace Investigation Training for Lawyers in partnership with LESA in April 2026. This two-day workshop designed especially for lawyers will focus on procedural fairness, investigator emotional intelligence, bias recognition, investigative interviews, credibility assessment, and related topics.