When the Headline Gets It Wrong: Why Precision Matters in Reporting on Investigators

A recent article in the Law Society Gazette reports that a family solicitor has been fined £17,500 following misconduct involving a litigant in person. [lawgazette.co.uk]

However, what stands out is not just the underlying conduct, but how the story has been framed.

The headline problem

The case is presented around the fact that the solicitor had “hired a private investigator”. At first glance, this creates a clear narrative: the involvement of an investigator appears to be central to the wrongdoing.

Yet, on closer reading, that characterisation is difficult to justify.

From what is reported, the misconduct appears to lie squarely with the solicitor’s own handling of the litigant in person’s contact details. There is no apparent finding that the investigator acted unlawfully, improperly, or outside accepted professional standards. Nor is there any suggestion that the investigator’s conduct was criticised by the tribunal.

That distinction is not a minor technicality—it is fundamental.

Why this distinction matters

Language shapes perception.

By leading with the involvement of a private investigator, the headline risks implying that engaging a PI is inherently suspect, or even indicative of misconduct. That is not what the facts of the case appear to support.

Professional investigators play a legitimate and often essential role in the legal process. They are routinely instructed by solicitors, insurers, and corporate clients to:

• trace individuals,
• gather evidence,
• support litigation, and
• facilitate due diligence

When carried out properly—and, crucially, within legal and ethical boundaries—this work is entirely legitimate and often critical to the administration of justice.

To conflate the instruction of an investigator with impropriety risks undermining that reality.

The real issue: solicitor conduct

A more accurate framing of the case would have focused on what appears to be the central issue: the solicitor’s handling and disclosure of a litigant in person’s contact details.

That is where the professional failing seems to sit.

If a solicitor shares or facilitates the sharing of personal data improperly, that raises clear issues around:

• confidentiality,
• data protection, and
• professional conduct obligations.

Those concerns exist independently of whether a third party—such as an investigator—was involved at all.

In other words, the presence of a PI is incidental; the solicitor’s judgment is the issue.

A practical lesson: choosing the right investigator

There is, however, a more nuanced point worth drawing from this case for the legal sector.

In many scenarios, an investigator may act only as a data controller in respect of their own methods and processes, or in some cases operate alongside a solicitor who remains the primary controller of the data and the instructions given. Regardless of the precise classification in any given matter, the solicitor retains overall responsibility for how personal data is obtained, used and shared.

That said, this case highlights the very real benefit of instructing a reputable and knowledgeable investigation firm.

A competent investigator does not simply follow instructions blindly. They understand:

• the legal boundaries of data acquisition and use,
• the sensitivities around litigants in person, and
• the need for full compliance with GDPR and professional standards.

In practice, experienced firms will often act as a sense-check—flagging potential risks, questioning unusual instructions, and steering clients away from decisions that could give rise to regulatory or ethical issues.

The reporting suggests the solicitor acknowledged his own shortcomings. But it also raises a broader question: could earlier challenge or guidance from a trusted investigative partner have mitigated the risk?

A shared responsibility in practice

This is not about shifting responsibility away from the solicitor—far from it.

Solicitors remain accountable for their conduct and their use of third-party services. However, working with a responsible, professionally-run investigation firm introduces an additional layer of protection:

• clear understanding of lawful methods,
• internal compliance processes, and
• the confidence to push back where necessary.

In an environment where data protection and ethical scrutiny are only increasing, that partnership matters.

It is also where firms like Tremark Associates, with structured processes, compliance awareness, and experience in cross-border and sensitive matters, can materially reduce risk for their legal clients.

A wider concern for the industry

This kind of framing also highlights a broader challenge for the investigative profession.

Despite being relied upon daily by the legal sector, investigators often operate in a space where misunderstanding persists. The UK investigative industry remains largely unregulated, but organisations such as the Association of British Investigators have worked hard to raise standards through codes of conduct and professional oversight.

Against that backdrop, it is particularly important that reporting distinguishes between:

• legitimate professional engagement, and
• misconduct by those instructing or misusing those services.

Failing to do so risks reinforcing outdated or inaccurate perceptions of the industry.

The importance of accurate reporting

This is not about defensiveness – it is about fairness and precision.