The Bank Pretext, the Fake Profile, and the Fake Deputy
Owen is a licensed PI hired to locate a debtor who owes $42,000. After public-records searches stall, he calls the debtor's bank, identifies himself as the debtor, and says he needs the address on file 'for a wire.' A teller reads him the address. Owen then creates a Facebook profile for 'Megan, 22,' friends the debtor's 16-year-old daughter, and learns the debtor's employer from the daughter's posts. Finally, Owen calls the employer, says he is a sheriff's deputy confirming a schedule, and gets the shift supervisor to confirm the debtor works nights. Owen bills 6.5 hours, including 1.2 hours for 'social media research,' and sends the client a report with the bank address and the daughter's name.
1. Evaluate each of Owen's three information-gathering methods. Which are lawful, which are not, and why?
Read the worked answer
The bank call is unlawful pretexting. Owen falsely identified himself as the account holder to obtain financial institution customer information, which federal law prohibits and which can also support state fraud or identity-theft claims. The fake Facebook profile is unethical and risky: he deceived a 16-year-old to obtain family information, violated the platform's terms, and created a false identity for personal gain. Even if not criminal in every case, it is the kind of conduct the Board can discipline. The call to the employer is worse: impersonating a sheriff's deputy is a crime and undermines public trust. None of the three methods should be used. Lawful alternatives include public records, courthouse filings, lawful database subscriptions with permissible purpose, surveillance, and non-deceptive interviews.
2. What lawful alternatives should Owen have used, and how should he document them?
Read the worked answer
Owen should have searched property, court, corporate, UCC, voter, and licensing records; used a reputable skip-trace database with a permissible purpose and audit trail; conducted surveillance at known addresses; and interviewed neighbors or the employer's public information line without deception. He could contact the employer's HR or legal department and identify himself truthfully as an investigator for a creditor, asking only for confirmable employment information. He should document each source, date, query, and result, and distinguish public-record facts from inferences. If a database requires a permissible-purpose certification, he should retain it. The report should identify sources so the client and counsel can assess reliability.
3. How should the report and invoice be corrected?
Read the worked answer
Owen should remove the illegally obtained bank address, the daughter's name, and any fruits of the fake profile or deputy impersonation from the client report unless counsel directs otherwise after review. He should preserve his original file and notes, but not conceal how the information was obtained. The invoice should not charge the client for illegal or unethical work; at minimum, the 1.2 hours of fake social-media research and the pretext calls should be removed or credited. He should notify the client or retaining counsel in writing that the information was improperly obtained and that he will not use it. Concealing the problem would compound the ethics violation.