Your answer is not completely accurate, and I will agree you may not be aware of all the facts. Actually, this tactic is being carried out in areas outside Oregon. The investigators being attacked are CFI’s, CFEI’s, and are licensed in their states. Your own statement gives credence to the complaints in that what does attacking ABC for violating an in-house policy have to do with the quality of the investigators investigation.

Have you contacted the appropriate organization and filed a complaint with them about what you suggest is the mis-use of their emblem. You saying there is a court order telling him not to investigate incidents, but he is still conducting investigation tell me there is something more to this story.

I do not disagree that the one mentioned is not your only client using this tactic, but what would concern me is if your were the common denominator for this tactic. Why I worry is your comment, “Which is easier, trying to prove your case or go after your investigator's E&O Insurance if he screws up?”

I agree it may be a trend, but that does not make it right. I believe the tactic of attempting to charge the original investigator is no more than an attempt to intimidate and influence the investigation by using this as a method of harassment. There is not a question in my mine that this same company would be the first to complain that because they were not notified the investigation is not valid because it did not follow the guidance of 921.