Q&A: Australia’s Top Investigations Trends in 2026

Michael, what are the most common types of cases you’re seeing right now among clients? 

There’s a lot of concern around breaches of confidentiality and intellectual property protection, largely because the nature of modern work has made it much easier for individuals to take data with them when they leave a company. So, we’re seeing a significant amount of work helping companies investigate loss or theft of IP, trade secrets and other confidential information. This includes situations where senior executives have taken proprietary information with them when they leave to join a competing company or start their own venture. 

Data breach review and reporting is another area where companies increasingly need investigative support from technical experts with experience working with complex and sensitive data. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner reported an 8% uptick in the number of reported data breaches in the last year, continuing an upward trend of increasing cybersecurity incidents year over year. 

With this, we’re helping law firms and their clients conduct a review of the data that has been breached and identify what personally identifiable information was exposed. These matters can be delicate given the nature of the data and the time pressures companies face to assess the breach, remediate where possible and report to the OAIC. The volume of data involved in these matters is also typically very large, so clients may be up against a significant burden or cost to conduct a thorough review.

Are there any new or surprising trends?

Overall, the fundamental nature of many of our cases have not changed, but we continue to see an expansion of data types and increasing data disparity across cloud environments. We recently reported in our 2026 State of Emerging Data paper that 63% of legal leaders have high concern about emerging data risks, and more than one-third of organisations say collaboration data is more than doubling year over year. This is reflective of what we’re seeing in our investigations. The impact is that digital forensics experts with experience in a wide range of data sources have become integral to conducting effective and defensible investigations. And, increasingly, these professionals need to augment their methodologies with generative AI solutions to surface more dynamic insights more quickly. 

One trend we’re seeing emerge is an increase in companies conducting proactive reviews of data that may be entering their company with new joiners. So, essentially the reverse of an IP theft investigation. Companies seem to be more aware of the fact that when they hire senior executives or technical professionals from competitors, those individuals may be knowingly or inadvertently bringing material with them, which can create liability for the company. In these instances, our team has been engaged to investigate what data may have been brought into the corporate environment, so if there’s anything that shouldn’t be there, it can be remediated and disclosed as needed. 

What do you think is driving that shift in companies being more proactive about investigating possible infiltration of sensitive information or IP?

At least in part, it’s the pervasiveness of cloud platforms and the ease with which  employees intentionally or unintentionally take material with them when they leave an employer. They may have a personal device used for work that retains sensitive corporate material, which can then sync to a new corporate environment when the individual brings the device along to another employer. That’s just one example of how confidential information can migrate without deliberate intent, but at the same time, the same technologies that make accidental transfer easier have also lowered the barriers for employees who intentionally seek to take proprietary or sensitive information with them when they leave.

Privacy laws are likely also driving some of this. These regulations are evolving rapidly in Australia and there’s a significant amount of awareness and attention on the issue. So, many companies are becoming more attuned to the landscape of data risks they need to watch for and address.

Coming back to an earlier point you made, data challenges don’t seem to be subsiding, but your team has seen a lot of success with deploying IQ.AI by FTI Technology to help address them. Can you share some examples of how generative AI is improving outcomes for clients?

That’s right. Our latest findings in The General Counsel Report found that the cost of disputes and investigations has grown for 57% of legal teams globally. The rise in costs is largely attributable to increased data volume and complexity. 

Generative AI is helping to change that dynamic by introducing new efficiencies that allow teams to alleviate the growing burden of data. In one recent engagement, we had a client that needed to investigate a whistleblower complaint. The board wanted a quick resolution, so time was of the essence, and we needed to capture and analyse a wide range of evidence from email, chat, travel records and mobile devices. IQ.AI was able to quickly pick up on red flags and suspicious content and analyse it in the context of the other relevant information to help point us in the right direction. It was a fast and effective fact-finding exercise that allowed us to uncover the details related to the whistleblower claim, so the company’s board could resolve the matter quickly and discreetly. 

How are clients, courts and regulatory agencies reacting to the use of generative AI in investigative settings?

It’s an ongoing awareness effort. We’re seeing strong collaboration and adoption among our law firm clients. A lot of corporate clients are rightly concerned about governance, human oversight and security around the use of large language models, especially where sensitive evidence is being processed. We field many questions around these issues with our clients — including at the board level — before we apply generative AI. FTI Technology places the utmost priority on maintaining security of our client’s data and defensibility in our processes, so we’re able to address our clients’ questions and bring them along to the use of IQ.AI. 

In the broader legal space, court rules vary. The Federal Court of Australia recently released updated core practice notes that demonstrate an openness to the use of generative AI in litigation, while emphasising that it must be used responsibly and consistently with existing legal and professional obligations and that disclosure of such use is required in certain circumstances. And where it’s used for e-discovery and review in litigation, the courts are actively considering how it can be used to improve efficiency in legal processes while maintaining appropriate standards of accuracy, transparency and procedural integrity. 

The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.