Good investigators are not necessarily smarter than the people they help. What often makes a good investigation is one in which “known” facts are independently evaluated once again. Just as we sometimes want a second opinion on a complex medical or legal matter, gathering and weighing the credibility of facts can also benefit from a fresh pair of eyes.
Continue Reading

GettyImages_140827099.jpgWe have had a number of recent cases involving foreign companies who entered into large-scale sale agreements with American-based corporations.  These companies are run by sophisticated, experienced executives. In most instances, the agreements were for millions of dollars’ worth of merchandise. 

Both sides hired attorneys who scrutinized the proposed contracts.  They carefully considered payment and

GettyImages_124373552.jpgRecently we were hired to track down a man who defaulted on a million dollar judgment against him by our clients.  The man’s family owned and operated a successful retail business.  Since the judgment against him, the man had declared bankruptcy.  He alleged that he no longer had income from or access to his family’s

GettyImages_78456509.jpgContext matters. We know this instinctively, and yet somehow we forget.  We still tend to assume that facts live in their own separate bubbles. So when we research and analyze, we warily keep our findings in separate categories—information on person A separate from information on person B, which are both separate from facts uncovered

GettyImages_200130809-001.jpgWe have written extensively about the importance of good interview skills, in our blog entries “What Greg Smith and  Goldman Sachs Tell Us About Investigations” and “Hiring Due Diligence Should Include an Attitude Check.”  Professionals whose work depends on their ability to interview well—investigators, journalists, lawyers, doctors—know that it’s an art, honed