The Strategic Costs of Incomplete, Rushed, or Non-Existent Litigation Support Investigations

A multi-agency national study conducted by George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy found that investigative thoroughness – i.e. the resources applied, the rigor of evidence collection, and how investigative effort is organized – is a key driver of case outcomes, independent of the inherent characteristics of the case itself. This implication extends to both criminal cases and complex civil litigation such as corporate fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and multi-party disputes. The important takeaway is this: the quality of the underlying investigation determines whether a legal team operates from a position of strength or information asymmetry. 

Common Deficiencies in Low Case Resolution Law Enforcement Agencies and the Application to Private Security Investigations

The bottom line is that rushed investigations are a liability. The George Mason study cited above analyzed over 1,400 case files across eight law enforcement agencies and found that agencies with consistently low case-resolution rates shared common overarching deficiencies: 

• Failure to assign investigators to most cases: Low-performing agencies triaged informally based on perceived solvability and “redlined” unassigned cases.

• Delayed responses to scenes: Investigators were not first responders for most case types. Notification lagged through supervisors rather than direct dispatch, with response times measured in days rather than hours.

• Lacked structured evidence-collection procedures: Only half of the low-performing agencies maintained detailed standard operating procedures. Crime scene logs, case checklists, and mandatory reviews were inconsistent or absent. Support from forensics, intelligence, crime analysis, and digital evidence units was minimal.

This same dynamic can be applied to civil and criminal litigation that is supported by private security companies. Here are three analogous deficiencies:

• Failure to deploy dedicated investigators on the case: Security companies rely on cursory background checks or assign investigative tasks to personnel already stretched across multiple matters.

• Delayed or reactive evidence collection: Surveillance and open-source intelligence (OSINT) collection begin after discovery deadlines. Or, depositions are scheduled prior to physical surveillance and OSINT collection, when subjects’ behavioral patterns, digital footprints, and traditional patterns of life are still intact and unguarded.

• No structured collection methodology: Evidence is gathered by investigators shoddily or ad hoc – without documented procedures, chain-of-custody protocols, or reproducible methods – producing intelligence (i.e. evidence) that cannot withstand admissibility challenges or cross-examination.

Underpowered investigations produce underpowered outcomes. It really is that straightforward.

Complex Cases Can Fall Apart Without Robust Strategic Investigations

The evidentiary landscape is rarely confined to documents. In that context, it is important to understand that physical surveillance provides something no database can: real-time, unfiltered behavioral evidence. 

A Touro Law Review analysis of video evidence in police misconduct cases explains that in Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court relied on dash-cam footage at the summary judgment stage to conclude that no reasonable jury could find the officer’s use of force excessive, reversing four lower-court judges who had found factual issues for the jury. Legal teams should not lack this type of evidence simply because no one was tasked with collecting it.

OSINT compounds the problem. The Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations – developed by UC Berkeley’s Human Rights Center in partnership with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – establishes that open-source information can:

• Provide leads.
• Support intelligence outputs.
• Serve as direct evidence in courts of law.

However, this is only true when collected using consistent, reproducible, and professionally documented methods. Ad hoc collection, the Protocol warns, risks producing information that cannot be regarded as reliable for the purposes of establishing facts in a case. For open-source evidence to be admissible, investigators must be able to establish its authenticity and chain of custody – a standard that requires professional methodology for experienced and highly-trained investigators, not casual internet searches.

The Negative Cost of Limited or Poor Investigations in Legal Disputes

An article in Judicature documents that approximately one percent of all civil cases filed in federal court are resolved by trial, with similar or even lower jury-trial rates reported in many state courts. The article concludes by explaining that expansive discovery and pretrial procedure “have had the effect of displacing trial in most cases, causing ever more cases to be resolved in the pretrial process, either by settlement or by pretrial adjudication,” in part because discovery exposes each side’s strengths and weaknesses. 

In a system where most cases resolve in the pretrial process, early factual clarity becomes a central factor in negotiation.

What Robust Litigation Support Investigations Look Like

At Convoy Group, litigation support is a part of our core services. Disciplined physical surveillance and structured open-source intelligence collection – the kind that identifies behavioral patterns, maps corporate relationships and hidden assets, and documents subject activity in real time – require the same methodical approach applied to any high-stakes operational problem. 

Legal teams managing complex corporate, fraud, or civil cases need investigative partners who understand that the evidence you fail to collect is the evidence that gets used against you. That is why we have seasoned investigators who deliver litigation support, investigative intelligence, and risk analysis for legal teams navigating complex and high-stakes disputes.