By: Karen Carrera
Technology continues to reshape workplace investigations, particularly as digital communications, remote work and artificial intelligence (AI) become embedded in daily operations. While these tools can enhance efficiency and consistency, they also introduce legal and ethical considerations that investigators and law firms must navigate carefully. Nowhere is this more evident than in the growing use of AI‑assisted tools in investigative and legal work.
Electronic Evidence and Scope Control
Emails, text messages, messaging platforms, shared documents and access logs frequently drive investigation findings. From a compliance perspective, investigators should carefully define the scope of electronic evidence collection at the outset. Over‑collection increases privacy risks and may conflict with applicable data‑minimization principles.
Remote Investigations and Confidentiality Safeguards
As virtual interviews and AI‑assisted transcription become more common, confidentiality remains a core obligation. Investigators must confirm that interviewees are in private settings and that recordings or transcripts are handled securely.
Investigators should take proactive steps to prevent inadvertent disclosure, including anonymizing information or using only tools with vetted security and retention practices. They should ensure that confidentiality protections are in place before using AI and avoid entering identifying client information into tools that lack adequate safeguards.
AI Use in Investigations and Bias Awareness
When applied thoughtfully, AI can assist with tasks such as transcription or summarization in investigations. However, one should conduct a human review to ensure accuracy and remain aware of potential bias. Investigators must remain alert to how AI outputs could skew credibility assessments or factual conclusions.
Accuracy, Hallucinations and Overreliance on AI Outputs
Beyond bias and confidentiality, one of the most significant risks investigators face when using AI tools is the possibility of factual inaccuracies or so-called “hallucinations.” Generative AI systems may produce confident-sounding summaries, timelines or characterizations of testimony that are incomplete, subtly distorted or outright incorrect. In an investigation context, even minor factual errors can undermine credibility, affect findings or create legal exposure if relied upon in decision-making. Investigators should approach AI-generated outputs as draft aids rather than authoritative accounts, independently verifying all factual assertions against interview notes, recordings and source documents before incorporating them into investigative reports.
Equally important is guarding against overreliance on AI as a substitute for professional judgment. AI tools may streamline synthesis, but they lack situational awareness, cultural nuance and the ability to assess credibility based on demeanor, inconsistencies or context developed over the course of interviews. Investigators can mitigate this risk by using AI selectively—for example, to organize information or to assist with drafting neutral language—while reserving evaluative judgments and conclusions for human analysis grounded in investigative training and experience.
Influence on Witness Interviews and Investigator Neutrality
The use of AI during witness interviews raises concerns about subtle influence on questioning strategies and investigator neutrality. AI-suggested follow-up questions or phrasing may unintentionally introduce assumptions, frame issues too narrowly or steer witnesses toward particular narratives. This is especially problematic in sensitive investigations where perception of neutrality is critical. To mitigate this risk, investigators should critically review AI-generated prompts before use and ensure that questioning remains open-ended, non-leading and aligned with established investigative protocols rather than AI-generated suggestions.
Additionally, investigators should remain mindful of the chilling effect AI awareness may have on witnesses. If witnesses know or suspect that AI tools are being used to analyze their statements, they may become guarded or distrustful, potentially impacting candor. Transparency—carefully balanced against confidentiality and investigative integrity—combined with reassurance that human investigators retain control and responsibility for the process, can help maintain trust while still allowing the appropriate use of technological aids.
Conclusion: Technology as a Tool, Not a Substitute
AI will continue to influence workplace investigations, but compliance and ethical judgment remain human responsibilities.
Please contact Renne Public Law Group Partner and Head of Investigations Practice Karen Carrera at kcarrera@publiclawgroup.com if you need employment advice and counsel on employment or an unbiased, prompt and thorough investigation. Our lawyers can help. Bilingual and bi-cultural.