PI intake red flags — when to decline before the conflict check

Most inbound PI inquiries are legitimate work that a licensed investigator can take, scope, and execute professionally. A small share are not. The trouble is that the not-legitimate share often presents in the first 30 seconds of the call, and an intake script that just captures the case type and contact info will dutifully write the lead into the case management system without anyone pausing to ask whether the firm should take the work at all.

This post is about the intake-time signals that warrant a polite decline before the conflict check is even run — and how an automated intake assistant can surface them rather than burying them.

The categories of work to decline

A few categories of inbound that responsible investigators consistently decline:

• Requests that imply pretexting for financial information. Asking for bank balances, account numbers, or other GLBA-protected information. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act prohibits pretexting for financial information, and federal enforcement is active.
• Requests that imply unauthorized surveillance. Tracking someone without legal authority — including some domestic-relations situations depending on jurisdiction.
• Requests where the caller's stated purpose is to facilitate harm. "I want to find this person because I'm going to..." The investigator is not legally obligated to help the caller harm someone.
• Custody and family-court work in jurisdictions or contexts where the investigator isn't experienced. Not because the work itself is wrong, but because doing it poorly causes serious harm.
• Stalking-adjacent requests, regardless of how they're framed. "I just want to know where my ex is and where they go" without an attorney involvement or legitimate purpose.
• Requests from minors or on behalf of unwilling adult subjects.

These categories aren't comprehensive. They're the patterns that come up enough to be worth building into an intake script.

The intake questions that surface red flags

A reasonable intake script asks, in order:

1. What's the case type? (background, surveillance, domestic, skip-trace, corporate, legal-support)
2. Who is the subject? (name, location if known)
3. What's your relationship to the subject?
4. What's the purpose of the investigation — what do you intend to do with the results?
5. Are you currently in litigation, mediation, or a legal proceeding involving the subject? Is an attorney involved?
6. What's your timeline?
7. (If conflict check required:) Have you previously worked with our firm or any of our investigators?

The first six are not just intake — they're a soft screening. Patterns of answers that warrant escalation to the licensed investigator before any commitment is made:

• "I'm not in litigation, no attorney involved" combined with a domestic-relations subject
• Refusal to answer the purpose question or vague answers ("just want to know what they're up to")
• The caller is asking about a subject they describe in ways that suggest no legitimate connection
• The caller asks specifically how the investigator can avoid detection in ways the investigator wouldn't typically discuss at intake

What the intake script should not promise

Independent of red flags, the intake should never:

• Promise that the firm will take the case.
• Quote a fee or a retainer amount.
• Estimate the timeline for results.
• Imply or state that the investigation will be successful.
• Discuss specific investigative techniques.

All of these are appropriately handled by the licensed investigator on the callback, not by the intake. An intake that overpromises creates a customer expectation the firm then has to manage down — or, worse, a contract dispute later.

Surfacing the flags in the case management system

When a flagged intake hits the case management system (Trackops, Case IQ, CROSStrax, whatever the firm uses), the case file should display the flags prominently at the top of the record. Not buried in a notes field. Not assumed to be obvious from the intake transcript.

Hartlowe's Indagor intake writes a structured flag list to the casefile — red_flags: an array of strings drawn from a known taxonomy, with the intake utterance that triggered the flag included as evidence. The investigator sees:

RED FLAGS (review before contacting caller)
- domestic_no_attorney: "I don't have a lawyer, just want to know where she goes"
- purpose_unclear: "I'm not sure yet what I'll do with the info"

The investigator decides whether to call back, decline, ask for additional context, or refer to a different firm.

The conflict check still happens

Even when the intake doesn't trigger red flags, the conflict check still happens before any engagement. The intake captures the subject's identifiers (name, aliases, last-known address, DOB if known) so the conflict check can run against the firm's prior engagements. This is industry standard and required by some state PI licensing boards.

The intake makes the conflict check easier by capturing the right identifiers up front, but it doesn't substitute for it.

What this changes for the firm

A firm with an intake-time red-flag system handles inbound differently than one without. The investigator's attention is spent on the cases that are likely engagements, not on triaging every call. The cases the firm shouldn't take get declined politely and quickly. The cases the firm should take arrive with the subject identifiers, purpose, and timeline already documented.

The reputational benefit is also real. Firms known for declining work that shouldn't be done attract better clients over time. The clients who want the firm to do questionable work go elsewhere; the clients who want the firm because it's professional and bounded find their way to it.

Indagor flags concerning intake patterns before they hit your conflict check. Start your agency at indagor.com.