Menu
Most people assume that investigations turn on facts.
They do not.
In many cases, investigations turn on credibility. Investigators, hearing panels, HR representatives, Title IX officials, licensing boards, and university administrators often spend as much time evaluating how a person communicates as they do evaluating the underlying allegations.
That reality creates a dangerous trap. People under stress often say things that seem harmless—or even helpful—but that can seriously damage their credibility.
Over the years, I have represented students, faculty members, physicians, nurses, and professionals facing investigations. Again and again, I have seen the same mistake: individuals inadvertently undermine their own position with a few poorly chosen words.
Here are some of the most dangerous phrases you can say during an investigation.
Most people use this phrase as a conversational habit. Unfortunately, investigators may hear it differently.
When someone says, "To be honest," it can unintentionally raise a question: Were you not being honest before?
Although that interpretation may be unfair, investigations are often shaped by perception. If you begin important answers with phrases such as "to be honest," "frankly," or "truthfully," you risk distracting attention from your message and drawing unnecessary scrutiny to your credibility.
The safest approach is simple: answer the question directly.
This statement is usually intended to demonstrate confidence and cooperation. Ironically, it can have the opposite effect.
Investigators generally do not determine credibility based on declarations of innocence. They determine credibility by evaluating facts, documents, witness statements, and consistency.
When someone repeatedly insists that they have nothing to hide, the statement can appear defensive or rehearsed. The stronger approach is to cooperate appropriately, provide accurate information, and allow the evidence to speak for itself.
This is one of the most damaging responses a person can give.
Even if the statement is true, it rarely helps. An investigation focuses on your conduct, not the conduct of everyone else.
Attempting to justify behavior by claiming that others engaged in similar conduct can sound evasive and may create the impression that you are avoiding responsibility.
A better response focuses on the facts surrounding your own actions rather than comparisons to others.
Few explanations are less persuasive during an investigation.
Comments that seemed humorous in the moment may be interpreted very differently after a complaint has been filed. Once an investigator is reviewing emails, text messages, social media posts, or witness statements, claiming that something was "just a joke" often appears more like damage control than an explanation.
Intent matters, but impact matters too. If a statement has become the subject of an investigation, dismissing concerns as humor rarely resolves the problem.
Sometimes this answer is entirely truthful.
The problem arises when it is overused.
If a person cannot remember critical events but can recall details that support their position, investigators may view the selective memory with skepticism. Conversely, making up details simply to avoid saying "I don't remember" is even worse.
The best approach is accuracy. If you genuinely do not recall something, say so. But be precise. Explain what you do remember and what you do not.
Absolute statements create unnecessary risk.
Words such as "never," "always," and "impossible" sound confident, but they can quickly become problematic if a single document, email, text message, or witness statement contradicts them.
Investigations often involve extensive document review. A person who confidently says "I never sent that kind of email" may find their credibility severely damaged when an investigator uncovers a single example proving otherwise.
Whenever possible, avoid absolutes unless you are absolutely certain they are accurate.
This may be the most dangerous statement of all.
Many people assume that only guilty individuals need legal representation. That assumption is incorrect.
Investigations are often complex, stressful, and high stakes. A student's education, a professional license, an academic career, or a person's employment may be at risk.
Seeking legal advice does not signal guilt. It demonstrates that you understand the seriousness of the process and want to navigate it effectively.
The earlier you obtain advice, the more options you typically have.
The most effective responses during an investigation are usually the simplest.
Listen carefully.
Answer only the question that was asked.
Tell the truth.
Avoid speculation.
Do not guess.
Do not exaggerate.
Do not become defensive.
And remember that credibility is built one answer at a time.
A strong defense is rarely created through clever explanations or dramatic declarations of innocence. More often, it is built through accuracy, consistency, and careful communication.
The words you choose during an investigation matter. A single statement can shape how an investigator perceives your credibility, your judgment, and your overall reliability.
Many people focus entirely on the allegations against them. That is understandable. But just as important is how they respond once the investigation begins.
If you are facing a university disciplinary proceeding, Title IX matter, professional licensing investigation, workplace inquiry, or academic misconduct allegation, obtaining advice early can make a significant difference in protecting your rights and avoiding mistakes that cannot easily be undone.
If you are involved in an investigation and are unsure how to respond, Lamparello Law can help you understand the process, protect your interests, and make informed decisions before small mistakes become major problems.
© 2026 Adam Lamparello, Esq.
| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm