The HR Director Who Hired You

The client is Redmond Logistics, and it was the client before Carla signed anything. When the individual who controls the engagement is herself a subject or an interested party, you have a duty to move up the chain - to the general counsel, the CEO, or the audit committee - because the entity's interest and Carla's interest have diverged. The allegations are specific and partly corroborated: her brother-in-law's yard, her approval of the write-offs, a relationship with the yard's manager. Reporting only to Carla means the person with the strongest motive to suppress findings controls the flow of information.

The carpool relationship is a separate, disclosable conflict. Your office manager is a neighbor and daily contact of the subject. Disclose it in writing to the general counsel, remove the office manager from any access to the file, and consider reassigning the investigator if the relationship could color judgment or testimony.

The governing principle for investigators mirrors the lawyers' rule: loyalty to the client entity, avoidance of conflicts, and no participation in a cover-up. Document the disclosure and the client's decision. Do not accept the instruction to delay a key witness interview - a delay that allows records to disappear is the decision that turns an internal matter into evidence tampering.

Posing as a buyer at the scrap yard is a classic lawful pretext in a commercial investigation: private parties may use deception to gather information, and there is no constitutional bar on private misrepresentation. The limits are specific. Never claim to be police or a government agent. Never induce conduct the target would not otherwise undertake. Never obtain protected records - bank, telephone, financial - by false pretenses. Never enter premises you are not authorized to enter. A recorded conversation with the yard's manager in the open is defensible; a sham cash transaction that induces new criminal conduct is not.

The stronger move is usually a straight interview. The yard has its own recordkeeping obligations for scrap purchases, and a documented request backed by the receipt-book photocopy produces better evidence than a sting.

On the delay: the request comes from a subject. Decline in writing, notify the general counsel, and if counsel also directs delay, you have a client-instruction problem. Advise of the spoliation consequences - an adverse inference instruction and possible obstruction exposure - and if the instruction stands, consider withdrawal rather than participation.

Write one report addressed to the general counsel and the CEO, describing methods, sources, dates, quotes, and documents - not conclusions about Carla's character. Attribute every inference: "the receipt-book photocopy provided by employee X on March 14 shows…" rather than "Carla stole." If counsel engages you after the fact, mark the report as prepared at counsel's direction and keep distribution tight; if the report will support employment action, assume it may be produced, so nothing goes in that you would not defend on the stand. Put the carpool disclosure in a separate memo so it is not buried.

Protect the evidence: preserve write-off records, the yard's purchase logs, and email; interview the night-shift lead before discipline and do not let a subject control timing.

If Carla is terminated, expect a defamation claim. A statement of fact, published to a third party, that harms reputation is actionable, but a qualified privilege protects reports made to those with a legitimate interest - and the privilege is lost through malice or reckless disregard for truth. "Carla approved write-offs for $X on these dates" is defensible. "She is obviously running a theft ring" is not, and gratuitous character language is exactly how plaintiffs defeat the privilege.