The Professional Under Criminal Investigation
How to protect your career, reputation and future before charge.
A strategic briefing for Doctors, Solicitors, Teachers, Directors, Executives and Other Professionals.
Published: June 11th, 2026
5
Most professionals who contact me are not worried about prison. That surprises people. But it is true.
They are worried about:
losing their professional registration
being suspended
regulatory investigations
damage to their reputation
losing a partnership
losing a directorship
losing clients
explaining the situation to colleagues and family.
The criminal allegation matters. But for many professionals, it is only one part of a much bigger problem.
One of the first things I explain is this:
A criminal investigation is rarely a criminal investigation.
It is usually several investigations happening simultaneously.
And each one creates risks that need to be managed carefully.
The Professional Investigation Gap
There is a significant difference between how professionals think investigations work and how they actually work.
Professionals often believe:
innocence will quickly become obvious
investigators will gather all relevant evidence
employers will remain neutral
regulators will wait for the criminal case to finish
explaining matters early will resolve misunderstandings.
Sometimes those assumptions are correct. Often they are not.
One of the recurring themes in my work is helping clients understand that criminal investigations are not simply fact-finding exercises.
They are information-gathering exercises conducted by human beings who make decisions under uncertainty.
That distinction matters.
The Four Types Of Professional Client
Over the years I have noticed most professional clients fall into one of four categories.
Understanding which category you fall into often helps explain where risk is likely to emerge.
The Explainer
Usually intelligent and articulate.
Often convinced that if they can simply explain matters properly, the issue will disappear.
The risk:
Giving too much information before understanding the allegation.
The Fixer
Often a director, executive or business owner.
Used to solving problems.
Used to taking control.
The risk:
Interfering with evidence, contacting witnesses or creating avoidable complications.
The Optimist
Convinced the matter will go away.
Often delays obtaining advice.
The risk:
Allowing important opportunities to disappear.
The Catastrophiser
Assumes everything is lost.
Assumes the worst.
Makes emotional decisions.
The risk:
Panic.
In reality, most professionals display elements of all four.
Recognising these tendencies early can be extremely valuable.
The Escalation Curve
Most investigations do not suddenly appear at the charging stage.
They develop through a predictable sequence.
Stage 1: The Allegation
This may be:
a complaint
a whistle blower report
a workplace concern
a safeguarding referral
a professional conduct issue
a relationship breakdown
a business dispute.
At this stage, little may actually be known.
Yet people often make their first mistakes here.
Stage 2: Silent Investigation
This is the stage professionals rarely appreciate.
Investigators may already be:
gathering evidence
obtaining statements
reviewing emails
examining digital material
speaking to third parties.
All without your knowledge.
Stage 3: First Contact
The phone call.
The email.
The invitation to interview.
The regulator's letter.
The employer's meeting request.
Most people believe the investigation starts here.
It doesn't.
Stage 4: Narrative Formation
This is one of the most important stages.
Investigators begin developing a theory.
Once people become invested in a theory, changing it becomes harder.
This is why timing matters.
Stage 5: Formal Decisions
Charging decisions.
Regulatory action.
Employment action.
These decisions often appear sudden.
They rarely are.
Stage 6: Consequences
The consequences may continue long after the criminal case ends.
The Three Narratives
Every investigation contains three competing stories.
The Professional Narrative: What actually happened.
The Investigative Narrative: What investigators currently believe happened.
The Documentary Narrative: What the evidence appears to show happened.
The outcome of many professional investigations depends on whether those three narratives align.
One of the most common mistakes professionals make is assuming their narrative is obvious.
It rarely is.
The role of strategic defence work is often to bridge the gap.
Why Innocent Professionals Sometimes Make Dangerous Decisions
One of the most uncomfortable truths about criminal investigations is that innocence does not automatically protect people from poor decisions.
In fact, innocent professionals frequently make some of the most damaging mistakes.
Why?
Because they are not thinking like suspects.
They are thinking like professionals.
They want to:
explain
cooperate
resolve
reassure.
Those instincts are admirable.
But investigations are rarely resolved through instinct.
They are resolved through evidence and strategy.
Doctors: The Hidden Risk Is Often The GMC
Many doctors initially focus entirely on the police investigation.
That is understandable.
However, in some cases the GMC can become equally significant.
The criminal issue and the professional issue are not always the same thing.
A doctor may successfully navigate one process whilst creating difficulties in another.
This is why criminal and regulatory strategy must often be considered together.
Solicitors: Integrity Becomes The Central Issue
For solicitors, the concern is often not simply whether an offence has been committed.
The concept of integrity frequently becomes central.
A criminal allegation may trigger wider questions about professional conduct.
The strategic challenge is ensuring that decisions made during a criminal investigation do not create unnecessary professional complications.
Directors And Executives: The Investigation Is Rarely Contained
Senior executives and directors often face a unique challenge.
Investigations can affect:
shareholders
investors
lenders
regulators
insurers
counterparties.
The allegation may be personal.
The consequences rarely are.
Teachers And Education Professionals
For teachers and safeguarding professionals, the reputational and regulatory consequences can often emerge extremely quickly.
Many become concerned about:
referrals
safeguarding investigations
professional restrictions
future employment.
Managing those risks requires an understanding of more than criminal law alone.
The Defence Evidence Map
One of the earliest exercises I undertake is creating what I call a Defence Evidence Map.
Most professionals assume investigators will gather all relevant evidence.
That assumption is dangerous.
Critical material often sits outside the investigation.
Emails
Drafts
Meeting notes
Clinical records
Governance documents
Financial records
Electronic logs
Internal systems.
The objective is not simply to react to allegations.
It is to identify and preserve evidence before it is lost, deleted, overwritten or misunderstood.
The 72-Hour Rule
There is a concept I discuss with many professional clients.
I call it the 72-Hour Rule.
The first 72 hours after learning about an investigation frequently determine the next 72 weeks.
Not because everything is decided immediately.
But because:
evidence is preserved or lost
narratives begin forming
communications are made
stakeholders react
strategic opportunities emerge.
The professionals who navigate investigations best are usually not the most intelligent.
They are the ones who avoid making irreversible decisions during the first few days.
What Elite Defence Work Looks Like
Most people imagine criminal defence begins in court. That is not my experience.
The most valuable work often occurs long before court proceedings are contemplated.
It involves:
understanding the allegation
identifying risk
preserving evidence
anticipating regulatory issues
managing stakeholders
controlling narratives
protecting reputation
influencing the trajectory of the investigation where possible.
The best outcome for many professionals is not winning at trial.
It is avoiding unnecessary escalation altogether.
The Question I Ask Every Professional Client
The first question is rarely:
"What happened?"
It is often:
"What is really at risk?"
Because once that question is answered properly, the strategy becomes much clearer.
Sometimes the greatest risk is criminal.
Sometimes it is regulatory.
Sometimes it is professional.
Sometimes it is reputational.
Very often it is all four.
The objective is not simply to defend the allegation.
The objective is to protect the life that exists around it.
About Craig MacKenzie
I advise professionals, company directors, senior executives and individuals facing criminal, regulatory and reputational risk.
My work focuses on serious criminal investigations, police station representation, strategic pre-charge engagement and protecting clients before formal proceedings are commenced.
Many of the most important decisions in a case are made before a charging decision is ever reached.
Helping clients make those decisions well is where I believe the greatest value is often delivered.
Recent Case Studies
Case Study: Protecting a Public Figure Facing a Historic Allegation | Forbes Solicitors
For further information please contact Craig MacKenzie
