Clues, cases and a dash of Shakespeare

When he’s not acting out a Renaissance drama on stage, Glenn de Roziere is taking on the role of private eye Sam Spade in real time.

As one of the few in-house legal investigators in Indiana, Roziere has been the man attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg go to when they need to unravel a clue. With a vast network of investigators worldwide and tools not readily accessible to most people, Roziere digs deep into high-stakes cases, locating corporate assets, skip-tracing witnesses, interviewing government officials and obtaining hard-to-find documents.

But the arts were his first calling.

In college, Roziere discovered he had a talent for acting, particularly in the classics written by Anton Chekhov and William Shakespeare.

As a professional actor, Roziere worked for companies including the Great Lakes Shakespeare Festival (now the Great Lakes Theater), the Cleveland Play House, The Old Globe in San Diego and the Missouri Repertory Theatre (now the Kansas City Repertory Theatre).

But when he learned that his wife at the time was pregnant with his first child, he searched for other work.

His first temp job was for a law firm in Chicago, which was pursuing the biggest case it had ever taken on against the mob. When the paralegal he was working for had to quit for family reasons, Roziere saw an opportunity. He approached the managing partner and made him
a deal.

“You hire me away from the temp agency, make me a paralegal, and I’ll take you through trial,” Roziere said. “Because I knew where all the bodies are buried. I know all the documents. I know everything.”

And just like that, Roziere’s path toward investigative work began.

After about a decade in the Windy City, Roziere made his way to Indianapolis, where he joined Barnes & Thornburg, first as a paralegal and then as the firm’s in-house legal investigator, handling cases from across the country. He says “intellectual curiosity” is the key to his job.

Roziere still dabbles in the theater; he and his wife directed a production of Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” at Marian University two years ago.

Speaking with The Indiana Lawyer, Roziere details the uniqueness of his role and the ethical challenges legal investigators face today.

What first drew you to investigative work within the legal field, and how has your career evolved over the years?

When I was a paralegal at this big firm, I realized that the paralegals were underutilized and that too much was expected of the associates. … I realized, no one’s getting their hands dirty. No one’s looking into this. No one’s doing this. …

I go back to that intellectual curiosity. It was the curiosity that led me to say: Why isn’t anyone looking at this? Has this been looked at? And I started looking at it for myself, in many cases … . Once people realized I was finding things, then I started to get better at it and better at it. I started to build resources. I started to attend … criminal justice classes. …

When I was a kid, I loved puzzles, and I think that’s the best way to describe why the legal field, the investigative legal field, truly speaks to me — because I like puzzles. I like to be given a question. I like to be given a problem, and I like to find an answer to it. And in most cases, I can. Not always, but most cases I can.

You’ve worked on both civil and criminal matters. How has that dual exposure shaped your investigative approach?

The stakes. I always say, if somebody is ticked off because their company is losing money, they’re going to be much more laid back; they’re going to have much less at stake. Your work is not going to have that urgency.

[But] if somebody is facing 15 years in prison, the stakes have changed, and your work has to change to meet those. The expectations are going to be higher. To keep somebody out of jail is a whole lot different than to help some company’s bottom line. You do the same work, but the urgency is different, and sometimes the subjects are different.

How have you found that your diverse experience in theater and the arts has played a role in how you go about investigations today?

One of the finest prosecutors I ever watched growing up in Dayton, Ohio — he was a good friend of my mother’s, and he became a good friend to me as well — started out as a Shakespearean actor in England. And after the war, he came over to the United States and went to law school and became a prosecutor — a damn good prosecutor. Best trial lawyer I’d ever seen. It was his acting; he’d learned how to communicate his acting skills. …

The idea of how you prepare for a role is very much like how you prepare for a case or a trial. You sit back, you look at the script, you dissect the script, you look at the motivations, and you follow the breadcrumbs. And it’s the same. I mean, that’s what I found out when I went into investigative work with law firms. I followed the breadcrumbs so that when performance night happens, I’m ready to go.

You are the only in-house defense investigator in Indiana who is a member of the National Association of Legal Investigators. What makes the in-house role distinct from working independently?

I’m in-house; I’m familiar. I’m available pretty much 24/7. I know what the firm wants. I know what the firm expects. … I am under the same ethical obligations as any employee here, as any lawyer, any secretary, anyone else who works here. …

Here’s the other big difference: I make money for the partners. They bill me out. I’m not overhead. I’ve made a lot of money for the partners, and they bill me out, not as an expense. I’m not an expense. Hiring an outside private investigator is an expense, all right. You get nothing from it, the firm gets nothing out, and that’s the big difference.

This is why I don’t understand why more big firms don’t have an in-house investigator. It’s a mystery I’ve never quite been able to solve. … It’s the convenience factor and the familiarity factor are the strongest points, I think, for people that aren’t necessarily looking at the bottom line.

How early in a case do attorneys typically bring you in, and how does that timing impact outcomes?

I wish that I was one of the first people contacted, but it’s not the case. I’m usually one of the last people. … I am always pushing to bring me in early on a case because I can find things early on that will save people a lot of headaches later on. …

I would prefer to go in earlier, and there are a handful of attorneys that do bring me in early that know me. But if I have to come in at the last minute and bail something out, I’m OK with that, too.

Your work spans everything from skip tracing to asset location to internal investigations. Which services are most in demand today and why?

Skip tracing is big. I have access to technology that no one else has access to, and I’m audited by the federal government for the privilege.

Investigations may involve sensitive information and high-stakes situations. How do you navigate ethical boundaries in your work?

I’ve always considered myself a very ethical person. I’ve always been of the opinion that ethics should be taught in the home or at least in grammar school and not by a committee at a law firm. But times have changed; ethics has become a term of art as opposed to just a way of life. And so I accept that. …

I have gone nose to nose with more than my share of private investigators that think ethics is just something they’ll get to when they get to it, and I don’t use those people. …

I once had a Boone County judge tell me when I was in his chambers [that] … “You’re an officer of the court.” I said, “No, I’m not. I never went to law school.” He said, “You work for lawyers, so you’re an officer of the court.” That always stuck with me. Maybe that was just his opinion, but it always stuck with me. We represent the client; we represent the court. We have an obligation to be ethical because we are officers of the court.

What are some of the biggest challenges investigators face today?

Liars and people … that don’t care about the truth; they only care about victory, winning. That’s where ethical breaches happen. …

I used to make the joke, “Hey, what do I care? I got no license to lose, right?” But that’s not the case. I mean, I am an employee of this firm, and I represent this firm, and so their ethical requirements are my ethical requirements. And I can’t imagine anyone doesn’t feel that way, and if they don’t feel that way, I think they’re wrong.

Looking back on your career, what types of cases have been the most personally or professionally impactful?

The ones that involved a personal touch. The one that did not necessarily involve money.

I worked on a case years ago involving the murder of a child, horrible murder of a child, that ended up in civil court. And I spent a week down in South Florida … investigating this case, talking to witnesses, all this kind of stuff. And it was horrible. … It was a thrill kill.

But the parents were suing our client because our client was responsible for this person’s safety. That’s what the case was basically about. And I couldn’t help but sympathize with what the parents were going through. It was tough for me, but … I had to keep my stability. I had to keep my objectivity on this and just come back with the facts.

That was difficult, but at the same time it was kind of exhilarating.

What do attorneys and clients often misunderstand about the role of an investigator?

The biggest problem I run into, honestly — and this is human nature, and I don’t take offense at it — but I can’t tell you how many times someone had said, “I want you to go and find this out,” and I come back with the facts, and they say, “That’s not what we wanted.” It’s the facts. … You package it however you want. This is what I found. There are investigators out there that will actually make up stuff to please their clients, which always backfires. But that’s probably the biggest challenge that I have.

If a law firm is considering hiring or expanding an in-house investigative function, what should it know?

Look at your bottom line. I mean, you’re billing out paralegals. You’re billing out law clerks. Why not have an in-house paralegal or an in-house investigator who’s got an investigative background or experience of any kind? … See if they’re willing to think outside the box. That’s so important.

There are so many people that go into this business with tunnel vision. … I don’t think that makes you a good investigator, and I don’t think you’re doing your clients or your attorneys any real services.

How do you see the role of legal investigators evolving in the next decade?

I think that as technology advances, it’s going to be more difficult for investigators to break away from the pack. … We need to adapt to understand that technology is a tool, and investigators need to do that. Don’t get steamrolled; don’t get intimidated by it. Understand what is capable of it, know its weaknesses, and work with it. And you will remain relevant. …

The best way to protect yourself is to embrace the technology, learn how to use it, learn its limitations, and you’ll be fine. That’s my pep rally.•