The Critical Role of Communications Professionals in Workplace Investigations

This article is reprinted by permission from the AWI Journal, copyright 2025, Association of Workplace Investigators (AWI).

Workplace investigations are often viewed as highly controlled, legally precise processes led or managed by attorneys. Indeed, various professionals are essential in defining the scope, conducting interviews, gathering evidence, protecting privilege and confidentiality, and ensuring compliance with laws. However, what many attorneys may not realize is that an equally crucial partner in these high-stakes engagements is the communications professional. While attorneys focus on issues such as the legal defensibility of the investigation and what actions to take in response to its results, communicators work to protect the organization’s reputation and manage the narrative—even if the investigation never becomes public.

Sometimes an investigation remains truly internal, with minimal attention from anyone other than the complainant, respondent, and perhaps a small group of witnesses. The accused isn’t a celebrity CEO or another high-profile executive, so media attention might not be a concern. In these situations, it may not be necessary to involve a public relations professional, particularly if someone within the company is a strong enough communicator to manage messaging in a low-visibility process.

However, if an investigation has triggered angst and fear in the employee pool or others affiliated with the company, partnering with a communications pro should be considered. This partnership isn’t just a “nice to have”—it’s a strategic advantage. From ensuring clarity in employee messaging to preparing for media scrutiny, communications professionals can collaborate with the attorneys involved in an investigation to maintain control and prevent minor issues from escalating into full-blown crises. This article explores the distinct but complementary roles of attorneys and communicators and why legal practitioners may need to, at times, rethink their approach to workplace investigations.

Where Communications Pros Add Value

Each attorney involved in an investigation has a distinct role.

• In-house counsel (employer’s counsel, sometimes known as advice counsel) advises the company on conducting a legally sound investigation and gives advice on what personnel actions may be warranted in light of the facts uncovered by the investigator. The attorney’s specialty (e.g., employment law, privacy, contracts, anti-trust) may depend on the matter under investigation.

• Regulatory attorneys ensure compliance with company policies as well as (notably in a publicly traded company where an investigation involves a senior member of management) any rules that might require disclosure of events that could affect share value.

• Labor attorneys may be involved in discussions of how the applicable union contract informs theinvestigation process or the rights of its members.

• Investigative attorneys (neutral investigators) conduct impartial fact-finding: interviewing witnesses, reviewing documents, evaluating credibility, reaching conclusions, and typically documenting all these tasks in a report. They aren’t involved in drafting the company’s messaging—because that’s essentially a form of advocacy—but may have a role to play indirectly. (More on this below.)

• Attorneys for the accused person or complainant (employee’s counsel)—whose clients may subsequently be a plaintiff or defendant in a civilaction—advise on legal rights and potential claims.

While playing distinct roles, these attorneys share a focus on legal precision, confidentiality, and—except for the neutral investigator—minimizing liability. They tend to operate with the assumption that every step of an investigation is documented with future litigation in mind. Board members, investors, employees not involved in the investigation, and other stakeholders often have a different concern: perception. Silence from leadership during an investigation can quickly fuel suspicion.

Without clear messaging that projects transparency, accountability, and authenticity, employees may fill in the gaps themselves, often with speculation, rumors, and misinformation. What looks like legal precision or caution to an attorney can look like evasiveness to the workforce.

Communications experts understand that managing perception is just as critical as managing process. By anticipating what internal and external audiences (including the press) might think, say, or ask, they develop messaging that preserves trust and calms speculation. If attorneys partner with a seasoned communicator early, they can work to avoid a reactive approach altogether and stay in control of the narrative.

What Communications Pros Actually Do
If you think the role of communications counselors is limited to drafting press releases, think again. Their influence is far more strategic in the context of a workplace investigation. That’s because communications professionals operate on two fronts: preparation and issues management.

On the preparation front, they create messaging that may never be used—but if needed, it’s ready. Inside counsel and outside employment attorneys should consider partnering with communications professionals to draft statements for employee platforms, talking points for senior leaders, and responses for board members who may be asked for updates. The best communicators prepare for every possible scenario, including the sudden disclosure of a previously confidential investigation’s existence. This is where proactive planning makes all the difference. Attorneys who wait for a media inquiry are already behind. If they’ve engaged a communications pro ahead of time, they have pre-written, legally vetted language ready to deploy at a moment’s notice.

A proactive strategy considers the numerous stakeholder groups who need and expect information at key moments, how those groups typically receive information, and the channels through which updates should be communicated. This includes company intranets, email, one-on-one conversations, departmental meetings, and town halls. If questions need to be addressed, in-house counsel and communicators should consider who in the company is authorized to be spokespeople—and just as important—who is not.

On the issues management front, communications professionals anticipate how different stakeholders might interpret what they see and hear. Employees talk, board members worry, and, in some cases, reporters ask questions. The goal is to avoid reactive messaging that appears defensive or haphazard. Communications professionals help attorneys craft language that preserves confidentiality while also reassuring stakeholders.

Instead of defaulting to “no comment,” which can sound evasive, they might recommend a brief, thoughtful statement such as: “We do not comment on specific personnel matters. However, the company has established protocols in place that are followed to ensure fairness and confidentiality for all involved.”

This approach accomplishes two key goals. First, it ensures control of the message. Second, it makes clear that the company maintains a fair process to respond to such matters. To employees and stakeholders, that simple message can calm concerns and reduce speculation.

Protecting Privilege Without Silencing Communications
One of the biggest concerns for attorneys is protecting attorney-client privilege. They often worry that involving “outsiders” like communications consultants could waive that protection. However, the numerous attorneys I have partnered with—both in-house counsel and outside law firms—expertly guide team members, including me, on best practices to maintain privilege.

First, when a communications counselor is retained to support the attorney’s legal strategy, the engagement can be protected under the same privilege rules as any other expert consultant. Second, the company should consider having the communications professional engaged through their outside law firm. This is especially important if the company lacks in-house counsel and the engagement is managed by a Human Resources professional, a Chief of Staff, or another organizational leader. Third, all communications related to the investigation should be labeled “Privileged and Confidential: Attorney-Client Work Product” to clearly indicate that they are part of the broader legal process. It’s also good practice for any accompanying emails to have subject lines marked with similar language, such as “Privileged and Confidential.”

At the outset of the engagement, communicators should be reminded of the limits of privilege, and counsel should make it clear that the legal team is the conduit for all messaging decisions. This preserves privilege and ensures all language is legally sound while still allowing communications professionals to do their jobs effectively.

The Role of Neutral Investigators and PR Decision-Makers
Of course, neutral investigators cannot strategize with the client about messaging; that role belongs to the other attorneys involved in the process. That said, if organizations decide to provide updates throughout the investigation, the PR pro should recommend what type of information would be helpful to have as the matter progresses. The investigator might be asked to provide updates on process issues, e.g., how many witnesses have been interviewed, how many pages of documents have been reviewed to date, when conclusions might be reached and a report written. The communicator may feel that disclosing such objective measures of progress will help assure stakeholders that the matter is being taken seriously.

Additionally, a key decision in any investigation is how findings will be communicated. The communications advisor can game out the pros and cons of whether a full detailed report or just an executive summary—with or without names—should be provided to stakeholders or even publicly. These decisions are typically made by advice counsel or another in-house lawyer responsible for facilitating the investigation and often hinge on the sensitivity of the matter, expectations of stakeholders, avoidance of follow-on claims, company custom, contractual provisions, and/or what was promised at the outset.

At the outset of the investigation, the company might ask the investigator for a résumé or other information (e.g., how many investigations the person has performed prior to the current one) to share, since seeing their credentials and experience may reassure stakeholders. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of each investigation, the neutral investigator conducting the investigation will have to make a judgment on what information can be shared with the client, and what should not be, in order to preserve actual neutrality as well as the appearance of neutrality.

The Power of Preparation
Some employment attorneys assume they can “wait and see” before involving communications experts. I suggest this is a mistake; the best time to think about external messaging is before a member of the press calls. If workplace accusations or an investigation become public knowledge, a reactive approach can lead to ignored inquiries or rushed, uncoordinated messaging—the opposite of the calm, rational decision-making needed in the heat of a reputational crisis.

Together, attorneys and professional communicators can develop a forward-thinking strategy that includes pre-drafted statements, talking points, and FAQs as well as response protocols in the event...

• An employee leaks the investigation to a journalist.

• The board requests updates.

• Employees speculate on internal platforms like Slack.

An effective strategy includes messages for employees, the board, the media, partners, and clients if necessary. With a playbook in place, the organization can respond quickly, thoughtfully, and consistently. For employees, the language might be as simple as:

“We understand there may be questions, and we want to assure you that the company has retained an experienced outside, independent investigator to conduct a thorough review of the matter. That confidential process is underway, and we would encourage everyone to avoid speculation and sharing unverified information.”

This type of message is straightforward, empathetic, and aligned with legal principles. It reminds employees that the company has a process, that fairness is a priority, and that gossip or speculation is discouraged. This can prevent misunderstandings and reinforces the company’s credibility.

Why This Partnership Matters More Than Ever
Advice attorneys and communications counsel don’t occupy separate spheres; they should work shoulder to shoulder, operating as a unified front. The attorney defines the legal strategy while the communications professional ensures messaging aligns with that strategy.

This partnership is about more than just crisis control—it creates clarity: it helps manage the narrative, preventing disinformation or incomplete information from circulating. It reduces the likelihood that employees or board members will feel compelled to “leak” details to outside parties. And if the investigation does go public, the company is prepared with messages that reflect its values. If the communications strategy is airtight, fallout can be reduced and the reporting limited to one news cycle.

The communicator’s role isn’t about “spin” or “damage control.” It’s about thoughtful messaging that reduces risk, prevents escalation, and builds trust. Their ability to see the big picture and anticipate potential questions and criticism makes them an essential ally for legal counsel.

Two Caveats: Ethics and Liability
The attorney(s) on the team responsible for helping draft and approve messages should be aware of the ethical rules on public communications as well as how press releases and other messages could expose the company to liability.

On the ethics front, Model Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity expressly references investigations—not just litigation. “A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of a public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

The model rule contains various exceptions, including that a lawyer is permitted to provide “the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved”, and “that an investigation of a matter is in progress”. Another provision states that a lawyer “may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.”

Attorneys need to check whether a version of the rule is in effect in the relevant jurisdiction and how it compares to the model rule. The specifics of Rule 3.6, especially in workplace investigations where a lawsuit is possible but hasn’t been filed yet, are issues beyond the scope of this article. However, attorneys involved in public relations decisions should be prepared to protect themselves by analyzing these issues carefully.

On the liability front, published messages—even if disseminated to only a few people—can give rise to complaints for various civil claims, including defamation, public disclosure of private facts, infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, and others. Depending on the jurisdiction, privacy statutes may have to be analyzed.

Many defenses exist that allow communications to be made, such as the litigation privilege, common interest privilege, fair report privilege, and constitutional defenses. From a communications perspective, sharing specific information can help reassure stakeholders and protect an organization’s reputation. However, attorneys may have concerns that disclosing such details might subject the participants to legal liability. This is precisely why a robust partnership between attorneys and communications experts is so valuable. Working together, they can craft language that is effective, yet not unduly risky.

Conclusion
For too long, retaining a communications professional has been treated as a luxury in workplace investigations. But savvy attorneys know better. In a high-profile matter, these experts aren’t a “nice to have”—they’re a necessity as part of a smart overall strategy that anticipates every variable. Their ability to forecast questions, draft clear messaging, and prepare the organization for the unexpected makes them invaluable partners.

So, try not to wait for a full-blown crisis to engage a communications professional. Partner with them early. Build the playbook together. It will likely result in a stronger, more resilient investigation process, and an organization that emerges with its reputation and trust intact.