Field Note: The Bridge Between Borders
It started with a call from a German-American attorney I had worked with before.
He represented a healthcare technology company based in the United States that was expanding into Europe. They were well funded and moving fast, planning to set up operations in Germany and build a network of local partners. They had the right lawyers, the right accountants, and the right introductions. Or at least they thought they did.
The attorney’s question was simple. Can you tell us what we don’t know yet.
He wanted an independent intelligence review before the contracts were signed. A quiet layer of verification that would sit behind the legal due diligence already underway. The point was not to question his work but to complement it. He understood something that most people overlook. In cross border transactions, the difference between a good deal and a future problem often comes down to the details no one thought to verify.
My assignment was to validate the German counterparties: the distributor, a few investors, and a consulting firm that had appeared late in the process. It was that last one that caught my attention. The late arrivals usually do.
We structured the engagement under privilege so that everything we found stayed protected. I operated as his investigator, which gave him direct access to the findings and allowed him to fold them into his counsel without losing control of the information.
I started with corporate records and worked outward. Ownership, litigation, regulatory filings, sanctions exposure, procurement data. Then I turned to what sits beneath the surface, local media, trade coverage, and the kind of regional chatter that rarely makes it across languages or borders intact.
Most of it was clean, which is how you want these things to go. But one investor stood out. On paper it was a modest private firm with an ordinary name and a small portfolio. In reality, its largest limited partner was a state owned healthcare consortium based in another jurisdiction, one already under scrutiny for procurement irregularities.
Nothing illegal. But problematic.
When I laid it out, the attorney understood immediately. If his client moved forward without addressing that connection, they would inherit a reputational risk they could not control. Worse, it could trigger red flags under disclosure or export control regimes if the relationship deepened later.
Together we built a confidential memorandum for the general counsel and the board. He framed the legal context. I provided the intelligence findings and documentation. The company quietly restructured the deal, keeping the partnership but removing the investor from the table.
That case reminded me how well the legal and investigative worlds can work together when there is trust. Attorneys operate within frameworks. Investigators operate between them. When those two perspectives meet, the result is not duplication. It is depth. The attorney interprets what is known. The investigator verifies what is not. Both protect the client, one through law, the other through clarity.
The company avoided a future complication. The attorney strengthened his client’s position. The board moved forward knowing they had done it right.
They could have hired me directly. Many clients do. But by coming through counsel, the work stayed protected and aligned with the broader strategy. That is often the best way to operate. Quietly. Collaboratively. Far enough behind the scenes to make a difference before anyone realizes there was something to fix.
