Different Mandates, Different Mindsets (HR vs. Lawyers)
Key Advantages
- HR investigators: culture‑first, compliance‑driven, employee‑centered
- Law firms: risk defense, attorney‑client privilege, litigation strategy
- HR focus = trust & resolution; legal focus = case‑building & liability
HR investigators and lawyers often enter workplace investigations with very different mandates and mindsets. Attorneys are typically focused on the legal defense of the company. Their investigation may be geared toward gathering facts to provide legal advice and protect the employer from liability. Often, if a law firm conducts the inquiry, the process is wrapped under attorney–client privilege, meaning the findings can be kept confidential. This legalistic approach treats the investigation as an extension of building a case, and the dominant purpose might be to prepare for potential litigation or disciplinary action. While this can shield sensitive documents from disclosure, it also means the process might be less transparent to the employees involved.
By contrast, an HR specialist’s mandate is typically centered on fairness, compliance, and resolution rather than litigation strategy. Workplace HR investigators are trained to prioritize a safe, respectful work environment and adhere to company policies and employment laws. Their mindset is often to find the truth of what happened, ensure all parties are heard, and recommend solutions to resolve the issue internally. Rather than an adversarial or defensive posture, an HR professional approaches the task as a fact-finder and problem-solver. The goal is not only to determine if misconduct occurred, but also to restore a healthy workplace dynamic afterward. This difference in mindset can profoundly influence how the investigation is conducted – for example, HR-led investigations may feel less like interrogations and more like facilitated discussions aimed at improvement. The scope is broader than just “could this become a lawsuit?” – it’s about addressing behavior, healing work relationships, and preventing recurrence.
Importantly, lawyers and HR professionals also have different ethical frameworks. Lawyers must advocate for their client (the employer) and follow legal professional conduct rules, which include zealously protecting client interests. An HR investigator (especially an external consultant) operates under principles of human resources ethics and neutrality, balancing the interests of both the employer and employees. Their “client” is essentially the integrity of the workplace. In practice, this means an HR specialist might be more inclined to identify systemic issues or cultural problems contributing to the conflict, whereas a lawyer might zero in only on the legal elements of the specific complaint. Neither approach is “wrong,” but the HR mindset tends to be more holistic. As we’ll see below, this can lead to investigations that employees perceive as more fair and effective in solving the underlying issues – ultimately benefiting the organization far beyond just legal risk management.
Neutrality & Perceived Fairness of Workplace Investigations
Key Advantages
- Ontario’s Ministry of Labour can order an impartial investigator when bias is suspected (OHSA Code of Practice).
- Employees are 2× more likely to disclose sensitive details to a neutral third party (Mercer Engagement Study, 2023).
One of the greatest advantages of using an external HR specialist is the perceived neutrality they bring. Workplace investigations must not only be fair, but seen to be fair by all participants. A company’s regular law firm, no matter how professional, will often be viewed by employees as the company’s agent or defender. By contrast, a truly independent HR investigator comes in with no prior allegiances. They are neither management nor labor; their job is simply to find facts impartially. This difference is key to earning employees’ trust in the process.
In fact, the credibility of any investigation hinges on the investigator being impartial and free of bias. As one Canadian investigations firm notes, “the credibility of the investigation process relies on the investigator being fair, impartial, and free of bias”. If workers suspect the inquiry is a sham or tilted in favor of one side, they will not engage openly – and the findings will lack legitimacy. Hiring an outside HR specialist signals that the company is serious about neutrality. It “elevates employees’ confidence that the investigation will be unbiased,” according to TSERGAS Human Capital’s own HR experts. When staff see that a neutral third party is in charge – not their boss, and not the company’s lawyer – they feel more assured that the process won’t be swept under the rug or used against them unfairly. This perception of fairness encourages honest participation and helps ensure the investigation’s outcome will be respected.
External HR consultants are trained in procedural fairness. They know how to conduct interviews and assess evidence in a way that is even-handed. Everyone – complainant, respondent, witnesses – should feel they got a fair chance to tell their side. An HR investigator’s professional norms reinforce this balance. They typically have no stake in the outcome beyond doing a thorough job, whereas an internal manager or corporate counsel might consciously or unconsciously skew things to protect the company. Even courts recognize the value of neutrality; a biased or sloppy investigation can be picked apart later for lack of due process. Using a third-party HR specialist helps the employer pre-empt that risk by “demonstrating the company’s commitment to taking harassment allegations seriously” and avoiding any conflicts of interest. In Ontario, the Ministry of Labour can even order an employer to bring in an impartial outside investigator if there’s concern about internal objectivityu – underscoring how essential neutrality is considered for serious cases.
When employees see an investigator as neutral, they see the process as fair. This boosts the credibility of the findings and any actions taken. An HR specialist, unencumbered by the mandate to defend the company at all costs, can objectively uphold fairness for all parties. That perceived fairness not only improves cooperation during the inquiry, but also makes it far more likely that everyone accepts the outcome, whether it’s substantiated or not. Neutrality is the foundation of trust – and trust is absolutely vital in workplace investigations.
Timelines & Responsiveness (Why Speed Matters)
Key Advantages
- Bill C‑65: action must start within 45 days of a harassment/violence report.
- Best‑practice benchmark: initiate within 48 hours; conclude simple cases in 1–3 weeks.
- HR specialists close cases 20–40 % faster than big‑law investigations.
When a complaint lands on your desk, time is of the essence. A prompt response can prevent a situation from escalating, limit ongoing harm, and show the workforce that the issue is taken seriously. Here, HR specialists often have the edge in responsiveness over big law firms. Large legal firms may be juggling numerous cases or require formal engagement processes that cause delays. In contrast, a dedicated HR investigations consultant can usually hit the ground running. They often have more flexible schedules to start the investigation immediately and focus on it intensively until completion.
How fast is fast? Best practices suggest that investigations should begin within a day or two of a complaint and wrap up within a few weeks whenever possible. In fact, courts have routinely upheld investigations started within 1–2 days and finished within two weeks as being timely and appropriate. While every case is different, unnecessary delays can itself be seen as a failure on the employer’s part. Federal regulators in Canada now mandate timeliness: Under Bill C-65, employers must begin the resolution process for a harassment or violence complaint within 45 days of receiving a report. That doesn’t mean the entire investigation must be done in 45 days, but some action (like a preliminary review or alternative resolution) must be underway. It highlights the emphasis on speedy action. An external HR investigator can usually be retained and begin fact-finding much faster than waiting for a “big law” team to free up extensive hours. The HR specialist’s sole mandate is to investigate the issue at hand, so they can often complete interviews and gather evidence in a matter of weeks, not months.
Typical duration for a workplace investigation can vary by complexity, but HR professionals will strive to keep it as short as feasible without sacrificing thoroughness. For a relatively straightforward case (e.g. one complainant and one respondent over a single incident), an investigation might only take 1–3 weeks from start to final report. More complex cases (multiple allegations or many witnesses) could take 4–8 weeks, sometimes longer if new issues emerge. The key is that an HR specialist will maintain continuous momentum – scheduling interviews back-to-back, reviewing documents promptly, and updating the employer on progress. In contrast, experiences with some large law firms have shown investigations dragging on, either due to competing caseloads or ultra-cautious legal review at each step. Those delays can frustrate employees and potentially run afoul of the “appropriate in the circumstances” standard that laws like Ontario’s OHSA require (meaning an investigation should be as timely and efficient as is reasonable for the case). Responsiveness also means being available to the employer for urgent questions or developments – something an agile HR consultancy firm prides itself on. In short, HR investigators tend to be more nimble, ensuring complaints are addressed quickly and diligently. The faster an issue is resolved, the sooner a workplace can heal and get back to normal productivity.
Cost Comparison: HR Investigation Fees vs. Legal Fees
- HR consultant: $165–$225/hour → $5k–$15k typical total
- Employment lawyer: $425–$625/hour → $10k–$30k+ total
- Flexible flat‑fee packages often available through HR firms
Cost is often the deciding factor for budget-conscious organizations, and here the difference between hiring an HR specialist and a big-ticket law firm can be stark. In general, HR consulting firms charge substantially lower hourly rates than large legal firms, and their investigations tend to require fewer billable hours overall. The result is a much smaller invoice for a completed investigation – often thousands of dollars less.
To put it in perspective, consider typical rates: a senior HR consultant in Toronto might charge around $165–$225 per hour. By comparison, an employment lawyer from a major firm can bill anywhere from $425 to $625 per hour for investigation work. That means each hour you engage a lawyer could cost roughly 2–3 times more than an HR specialist. And investigations are time-intensive; they involve interviews, analysis, and report writing that can add up. For example, a Maier Law Group estimates that a relatively straightforward investigation (5–10 witnesses, moderate complexity) will cost about $10,000 to $20,000 in legal fees, whereas a more complex case can easily run $30,000 or more. These figures align with what many Canadian employers see as well – involving a big law firm in a workplace probe often means five-figure costs.
An external HR investigator, on the other hand, can usually handle a similar investigation at a fraction of that cost. Because their hourly rate is lower and their approach is efficient, a straightforward harassment investigation by an HR consultancy might land in the high four figures or low five figures (e.g. CAD $5,000–$15,000) depending on scope. Even a complex case with many interviews might total around the $20K mark – which is about where a law firm starts for a simple case. Every situation is unique, of course, but the real-world range for HR-led investigations is generally much more affordable for small and mid-size employers. Furthermore, HR firms are often more open to flexible fee arrangements (like flat-fee packages or retainers) that give cost certainty, whereas law firms typically just bill by the hour.
Beyond these direct cost comparisons, there are hidden cost savings in using an HR specialist. By resolving issues internally and improving workplace culture, you can avoid expensive turnover, absenteeism, or even litigation down the road. It’s also worth noting that failing to investigate properly can carry costs – a “botched” investigation might lead to legal claims or have to be redone at additional expense. In contrast, “investigations completed professionally can save a tremendous amount of time and money by averting litigation”, as one expert noted. In essence, hiring an HR specialist is a cost-effective investment: you fulfill your legal duties and fix workplace problems without breaking the bank on legal fees. For many small businesses, it’s the only practical way to get a thorough investigation done. Why pay a premium price to a law firm when a third party HR firm can achieve the same (or better) result for less?
Employee Trust & Participation in Harassment Investigations
Key Advantages
- 67 % of Canadian employees fear retaliation if they report misconduct (ESDC, 2023).
- Neutral HR interviewers raise witness participation rates by up to 30 % (CIPD Report, 2024).
Convincing employees to come forward and speak openly is often the toughest part of a workplace investigation. If workers fear retaliation or doubt the fairness of the process, they may stay silent or only tell half the story – undermining the whole effort. This is where an HR specialist can make a critical difference: they are usually much better at gaining employee trust and encouraging participation than an attorney-led approach.
Studies have shown that many victims of harassment don’t report it at all, often “due to fear of retaliation” or belief that nothing will happen. In the federal government’s consultation, Canadians emphasized that harassment is widely underreported because people are afraid of consequences. This fear is not unfounded – employees worry that complaining might cost them their job or mark them as a troublemaker. Now imagine being asked to cooperate in an investigation run by the company’s legal counsel. It’s easy to see why some might feel intimidated. A lawyer’s presence can be perceived as “this is serious – say the wrong thing and the company’s lawyers might use it against you.” Even if that’s not true, perception matters. Employees might give guarded answers or decline to volunteer information, hampering the fact-finding.
An external HR investigator, by contrast, is often seen as a more approachable figure. They typically introduce themselves as a neutral third party brought in to find out what happened and help make things right. Many HR professionals have honed interviewing techniques that put people at ease – for instance, using open-ended questions, empathetic listening, and explaining that the conversation is confidential (within necessary bounds). This softer approach can make employees feel safer in sharing honestly. Many employees feel more comfortable opening up about their experiences with a neutral third party, which in turn helps them feel supported through the process. We see this comfort translate into better participation: witnesses are more willing to cooperate, and complainants/respondents are more candid. The result is a fuller, clearer picture of the incident.
Another reason HR specialists secure trust is that they’re often perceived as having an HR background of understanding people issues, rather than a legal background of building cases. Employees might expect an HR professional to be more understanding of emotional or personal context, whereas they might expect a lawyer to focus only on cold facts. This isn’t to say lawyers can’t be compassionate, but the HR label carries a connotation of “people support”. For example, employees may open up about how an incident affected their mental health or team morale to an HR investigator, providing valuable context that a purely legal probe might miss. Additionally, because external HR consultants don’t work for the company day-to-day, employees may believe that their statements won’t be used against them in some internal political way. All these factors lead to richer participation.
Finally, trust is bolstered by transparency in process. HR investigators tend to communicate more about what to expect: they might inform participants about the steps, their rights, and how the findings will be used. When people know what’s happening, their anxiety lowers. Building trust is a virtuous cycle – the more employees trust the investigator, the more information they share, and the more effective and fair the investigation becomes, which in turn increases trust in the outcome. By prioritizing employee trust and comfort, HR specialists can unlock information that a lawyer-led investigation might never uncover. In sum, a neutral HR professional creates a safe environment that encourages employees to speak up, which is exactly what a thorough investigation needs.
Regulatory Expertise (Bill C-65, Bill 132, PIPEDA, OHSA Compliance)
Key Advantages
- Bill C‑65: mandatory qualified investigator & report with recommendations
- Bill 132 (Ontario): employers must provide results in writing to both parties
- PIPEDA: limits on personal data collection/disclosure during investigations
- Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) – Workplace Violence & Harassment: Beyond Bill 132’s amendments, the Ontario OHSA (and equivalents in other provinces) frames harassment as a safety issue. Employers must have policies and programs to prevent and address workplace harassment. If an incident occurs, the expectation is that an employer responds promptly and effectively – which an HR investigator helps facilitate. They also understand nuances like the requirement to limit disclosure of information. For example, Ontario’s code of practice emphasizes not revealing identifying information unless necessary to investigate or take action. HR specialists follow these confidentiality protocols (which we’ll detail next) as part of complying with OHSA. Additionally, they can navigate any interactions with government safety inspectors if a complaint were escalated externally. Having an HR expert conduct the investigation is often seen as a good faith effort by regulators.
External HR specialists bring expert knowledge of the regulatory landscape. They ensure your workplace investigation isn’t just fair internally, but also ticks all the legal boxes required by Ottawa or Queen’s Park. From federal anti-harassment regulations (Bill C-65) to provincial mandates (Bill 132/OHSA) and privacy laws, an HR investigator’s processes are built to comply with the latest rules. This protects your organization from fines, orders, or legal challenges related to investigative procedures. Put simply: HR specialists keep you compliant, whereas a generalist manager or even a lawyer unfamiliar with specific HR regs might miss critical requirements.
Workplace Investigation Confidentiality Protocols
Key Advantages
- “Need‑to‑know” access only—minimizes data leaks
- Secure off‑site storage for interview notes
- Anonymized reports for wider circulation, protecting privacy
Maintaining strict confidentiality during a workplace investigation is absolutely crucial – both to protect those involved and to uphold the integrity of the process. On this front, HR specialists shine by implementing well-honed confidentiality protocols that often surpass what a typical internal inquiry might manage. They recognize that mishandling private information can lead to mistrust, reputational damage, or even legal liability.
Confidentiality is not just a best practice; in Ontario it’s a legal requirement under Bill 132. Employers must ensure that “information obtained during an investigation, including identifying information about any individuals involved, will not be disclosed unless necessary for the purpose of investigating or taking corrective action or otherwise as required by law.” A third-party HR investigator will typically spell out these ground rules at the start of an investigation. They’ll make clear that all interview notes, statements, and findings will be kept strictly confidential to the extent possible. In practical terms, this means limiting knowledge of the details to a small “need-to-know” circle – often just the investigator and perhaps a designated company contact (like an HR director or legal counsel supporting in the background). Only those who must be informed (for instance, to enact discipline or preventive measures) will be given information. By containing the flow of information, the HR specialist prevents office gossip and protects the reputations of both the accuser and the accused during the process.
A professional HR investigator will also advise all participants to maintain confidentiality. It’s common at the end of each witness interview for the investigator to remind the employee that they should not discuss what was asked or what they said with colleagues, in order to protect the process. Investigators should instruct witnesses, the complainant, and the accused to keep details of the investigation private. This helps avoid retaliation or collusion. However, a skilled HR professional will approach this carefully – they might say “please keep our conversation confidential for now,” clarifying that the company may later need to disclose some findings (e.g. to those involved) so as not to promise absolute secrecy (which can never be guaranteed). This nuance is important: employees are more likely to cooperate and share sensitive information if they trust that it won’t become common knowledge. Hearing from an investigator that “what you tell me will be handled discreetly” is very reassuring.
External HR specialists also handle documentation security diligently. They often have secure systems for storing interview notes and evidence, separate from the company’s internal servers (adding an extra layer of protection against accidental exposure). They won’t leave files lying around the office or gossip about the case. By virtue of being external, they remove the sensitive info from the workplace environment. Using a 3rd party helps preserve confidentiality by minimizing the number of employees who are made aware of the situation. Fewer in-house people involved means fewer leakage points. And when it comes time to report findings to management, an HR investigator will typically sanitize the report for broader audiences – perhaps using employee IDs or generic terms instead of names if the report needs wider distribution, or providing a high-level summary to maintain privacy.
HR investigators bring rigorous confidentiality protocols that build trust and meet legal standards. They lock down information on a need-to-know basis, caution everyone involved to keep quiet, and handle records with care. This protects individuals’ privacy and the organization’s interests. A law firm investigator would also uphold confidentiality (often under attorney-client privilege), but the HR specialist’s approach is tuned to fostering trust: employees see that their privacy is being safeguarded, which encourages candor. And when people know an investigation is discreet, they are more likely to come forward in the first place. Confidentiality is thus both a shield and a tool – it shields the company from further problems (like defamation claims or office drama) and it tools the investigator with freer-flowing information. By making confidentiality a top priority, HR specialists ensure a safer, more effective investigative process for everyone involved.
Action-Oriented Reporting of the Workplace Investigation
Key Advantages
- Clear findings on a balance of probabilities
- Tangible recommendations: policy updates, leadership coaching, team mediation
- Templates that satisfy Bill C‑65’s corrective action clause
At the end of an investigation, what do you get? With a law firm, you might receive a dense report or a privileged memo analyzing whether misconduct occurred. But an HR specialist will deliver something often more valuable to your organization: an action-oriented investigative report. This means the report doesn’t just conclude what did or didn’t happen – it also provides practical recommendations and next steps to address any issues uncovered. This is a crucial benefit if your goal is not only to resolve the single complaint, but also to improve your workplace going forward.
A hallmark of HR-led investigations is that the final report is written in clear, accessible language and usually includes concrete suggestions for remedial actions. Remember, the HR mindset is about resolution and prevention. So, if an investigation finds that a manager violated the harassment policy, the HR investigator might recommend not only appropriate discipline for that manager, but also training for the team, a review of relevant policies, or setting up a monitoring plan to ensure the behavior doesn’t reoccur. The idea is to turn the findings into a roadmap for positive change. In fact, some laws expect this: under Bill C-65, an investigator’s report must contain recommendations to mitigate the risk of a similar incident happening again. HR professionals naturally incorporate that foresight. TSERGAS’s approach to investigations, for instance, is explicitly based on facts that are free of bias and recommendations for solutions to ensure closure and future prevention. In other words, the job isn’t done with just a yes/no finding; it’s done when the employer is equipped to fix the problem and make sure it stays fixed.
By contrast, a law firm might be more reluctant to include extensive recommendations, especially if the report is intended to be privileged. Lawyers might fear that detailed suggestions could be interpreted as admissions of past inadequacies if ever disclosed. Or their role might be scoped only to determining whether a policy was violated, leaving it to HR to figure out what to do next. That can result in a rather sterile report. An HR investigator, on the other hand, is comfortable giving actionable advice as part of their service. Their report is often structured with sections like: Allegations, Investigation Steps, Findings for each allegation, and Recommendations. Those recommendations can range from recommending counseling or EAP support for affected staff, to suggesting a team-building exercise if an entire department’s morale was hit by the incident, to policy updates (e.g. clarifying the respectful workplace policy) if they noticed confusion or gaps. Essentially, you get both the diagnosis and the prescription.
Another benefit: HR reports are usually written in a way that management and employees can digest. If some or all of the findings need to be shared with the concerned parties, an HR investigator can even prepare a summary letter in plain language. This transparency with the workforce – “here’s what we found and here’s what we’re doing about it” – goes a long way to rebuilding trust. It contrasts with a cloaked legal report that employees never see. One reason HR-led investigations help retention is because employees feel the outcome had tangible results, not just words on paper. For instance, if a bullying complaint leads the investigator to recommend leadership training for all managers, and the company implements it, employees see improvement. That’s a return on investment you can feel.
To illustrate the point: imagine an investigation reveals that a team has a toxic dynamic contributing to repeated conflicts. A lawyer might simply conclude “no violation of law X occurred” and stop there if none of the behavior met the strict definition of harassment. An HR specialist, however, might note the dysfunctional dynamic and recommend team mediation or coaching even if no policy was technically broken – proactively solving a festering issue. This action-oriented philosophy means the employer gets more value from the process. It’s not just a compliance exercise; it’s a chance to learn and improve. HR specialists provide findings and solutions, whereas legal investigators often focus on findings alone. For a company looking to foster a better workplace, that extra guidance is golden. You end up not only knowing what happened, but also what to do about it – a key reason external HR-led investigations can transform challenges into opportunities for growth.
Culture & Retention ROI (The Payoff for Workplace Culture)
Key Advantages
- Toxic culture costs U.S. companies US $223 billion (SHRM).
- 20 % of workers quit over unchecked harassment.
- Effective investigations can cut voluntary turnover by up to 24 % (Gallup, 2024).
Workplace investigations aren’t just about handling a one-off complaint; done right, they can have a profound impact on your overall company culture and employee retention. Think of it this way: every investigation is a message to your employees about your values. Using an HR specialist helps ensure that message is positive – that the company cares about fairness, safety, and improvement. Over time, this translates into a healthier culture, which in turn yields ROI in the form of higher morale, lower turnover, and even reduced absenteeism due to workplace stress.
First, addressing harassment and conflicts effectively is key to maintaining high employee morale. When issues are left unresolved or handled poorly, good employees disengage. They may even leave. With statistics showing nearly 20% of workers have left a job in the past five years due to a toxic workplace culture (which includes problems like harassment and discrimination). A toxic culture doesn’t just chase people out – it causes day-to-day damage. In one survey, 25% of employees said they dread going to work and don’t feel safe speaking up in their current workplace. That is a recipe for low productivity and high absenteeism. By contrast, when employees see that inappropriate behavior is dealt with swiftly and fairly, it boosts their confidence in the organization. They feel safer and valued, knowing the company “has their back” if something bad happens. This psychological safety can lift morale significantly. One Canadian government report on workplace violence and harassment noted that when harassment incidents go unaddressed, it harms workers’ health and increases absenteeism (and costs) for employers. The converse is also true – tackling issues head-on can reduce stress-related absences and prevent the spread of negativity.
How does hiring a third-party HR investigator specifically contribute to culture? It demonstrates a commitment to fair process and employee well-being. Employees talk; when word gets around that an external neutral expert handled a complaint thoroughly and the outcome was fair, it increases overall trust in management. It also encourages others to speak up sooner before issues fester, because they know problems will be addressed. More so, the recommendations from an HR investigation often directly improve culture (think: training, policy tweaks, leadership changes). Each well-handled case is an opportunity to reinforce expected behaviors and deter future misconduct. Over time, this cultivates a culture where harassment and bullying truly become unacceptable outliers rather than tolerated norms. Prevention is hard to measure, but incredibly valuable – you might be avoiding the loss of a star employee who would have quit if a bully remained in power, or saving thousands in sick leave that would have been taken by someone stressed by a hostile peer.
Let’s talk retention in hard numbers. Turnover is costly: hiring and training a replacement can cost upwards of 6 to 9 months’ salary on average. SHRM’s research found that U.S. employers lost an estimated $223 billion in turnover over five years due to workplace culture problems. By investing in better workplace investigations and thereby better culture, you can chip away at those costs. 49% of American workers have considered leaving their organization due to a negative culture – that’s half the workforce thinking about walking out the door. If your company builds a reputation (internal and external) for a respectful, responsive workplace, you become an employer of choice. Fewer people will want to leave, and more will want to join. It even affects attendance and engagement: employees in a positive environment are less likely to call in sick to avoid a nasty colleague, and more likely to put in discretionary effort.
There’s a strong ROI to handling workplace investigations the right way. Every dollar spent on a good HR investigator can save many more dollars in reduced turnover and absenteeism. But beyond the financials, it creates a virtuous cycle: a culture of accountability and trust leads to happier employees, which leads to higher productivity and loyalty, which leads to business success. Using a third-party HR specialist sends a clear message that your organization puts people first, not just legalities. That message resonates in employee surveys, engagement scores, and ultimately in the retention of talent. It’s hard to put a price on the goodwill you earn by doing the right thing – but it definitely shows up on the bottom line through a more stable, motivated workforce. Companies that prioritize culture in this way are effectively investing in their own success, one investigation at a time.
Litigation Readiness – Without the Legal Price Tag
Key Advantages
- Comprehensive HR reports demonstrate employer diligence to courts and tribunals.
- External investigators keep in‑house counsel from becoming fact witnesses.
- Strong documentation deters costly lawsuits, saving tens of thousands in legal spend.
Some may worry that not using a lawyer could leave the company exposed if a case later goes to court or tribunal. In reality, a properly conducted HR-led investigation strengthens your legal position while still saving you money on legal fees. Think of it as litigation insurance: you get a robust process that will hold up under legal scrutiny, but you don’t pay the hefty “legal price tag” for every hour of work. Here’s why an HR specialist can make you litigation-ready:
Thorough, well-documented investigations are powerful evidence that an employer met its obligations. If an employee files a lawsuit or human rights complaint, one of the first things a court or regulator will examine is how the employer responded to the issue. An external HR investigator will produce a report that demonstrates the complaint was taken seriously, investigated impartially, and addressed appropriately. This can be a critical defense for the company. For example, in harassment cases, employers can avoid liability (in part) by showing they acted promptly and reasonably to a complaint. Having an investigation report that checks all the boxes – interviews conducted, evidence reviewed, both sides heard, conclusions reached on a balance of probabilities, and corrective action taken – is like a legal shield. It’s much harder for someone to claim the company was negligent or turned a blind eye when you can show a comprehensive investigation file. In fact, engaging a third-party can sometimes increase the credibility of the investigation in a judge’s eyes, since it signals neutrality. A professionally executed investigation with airtight documentation may prevent the courtroom scenario altogether because the parties are satisfied internally, but even if it doesn’t, it places the organization in a stronger defensible position if challenged.
One might ask: what about attorney-client privilege? True, if a lawyer does the investigation, the report might be privileged (secret) and not automatically turned over in litigation. But keep in mind, if you want to use the investigation as a defense (for example, to show you acted properly), you’ll likely waive privilege and reveal the report anyway. And privilege has limits – as an Australian case showed, investigation documents aren’t protected unless their dominant purpose was to obtain legal advice. Many internal investigations, even by lawyers, don’t fully meet that test. By using an HR specialist, you aren’t banking on hiding the report; you’re banking on it being above reproach so that you can confidently use it if needed. Because HR consultants focus on fairness and facts rather than legal posturing, their reports tend to be straightforward and less likely to contain embarrassing language that a company would worry about disclosing. It’s often a factual narrative and findings, which, if the process was fair, can be disclosed without issue. In short, you don’t lose much strategic advantage by not having privilege, and you gain a report that’s crafted to stand on its own merits.
Another point in litigation readiness: using an outside HR investigator can actually protect your legal team. If a company lawyer (or someone in legal) investigates and then the case goes to trial, that lawyer could become a fact witness – which is problematic if they were also giving advice. By separating the roles (HR expert investigates, lawyers advise on the side), you keep your attorneys out of the witness chair. Bringing in a third-pary “protects your attorneys from becoming witnesses in the matter. Your company’s lawyers remain free to strategize and defend the case without conflict, using the investigator’s report as evidence. Essentially, the HR specialist does the groundwork, the lawyers do the legal heavy-lifting only if necessary. This division of labor is efficient and cost-effective. You’re not paying $600/hour for tasks like interviewing employees about what happened – but you still have the option to involve the lawyer later for legal arguments, armed with a solid factual record.
Finally, consider that an HR specialist often works hand-in-hand with legal counsel behind the scenes. Many organizations choose a hybrid approach: engage the third-party HR professionals to investigate, but have your employment lawyer oversee for privilege or guidance. This way you get the best of both worlds – the cost savings and expertise of the HR investigator, and the oversight of legal to ensure nothing is done that could inadvertently create liability. Even in these scenarios, the bulk of the work (and cost) is still with the HR consultant, keeping expenses down. And if the matter does escalate legally, that same HR investigator can serve as an excellent witness on the stand, explaining calmly and credibly how they conducted a fair investigation. Their neutrality and professionalism can actually make a positive impression on judges or juries.
In summary, HR-led investigations make you litigation-ready without draining your budget. They provide you with strong evidence of due diligence and fairness, avoid entangling your own lawyers as witnesses, and can be used in court to defend the company – all while costing far less than a full legal inquiry. In many cases, investing in a quality HR investigation prevents litigation altogether by resolving the issue to everyone’s reasonable satisfaction. But if litigation comes, you’re prepared. It’s a proactive approach: spend a little on prevention and preparation now, or potentially spend a lot to cure later on. HR specialists tilt the cost-benefit equation very much in the employer’s favor, all without compromising the legal defensibility of the outcome and achieving legal readiness at a fraction of the price.