Emmeline Rushbrook is a leading investigations lawyer. She has extensive experience advising on and leading regulatory investigations, internal investigations and public inquiries, both in New Zealand and internationally.
Recently recognised as one of the world’s leading investigations lawyers in Lexology Index – Investigations (GIR) 2026, Emmeline reflects on her investigations practice, the evolving regulatory landscape and the importance of independence, judgment and empathy in complex matters.
In addition to her investigations practice, Emmeline specialises in commercial litigation, financial services regulation, and public and administrative law. She is also recommended by Lexology Index in the Commercial Litigation and Australia and New Zealand categories for Commercial Litigation and Business Crime, Investigations & Asset Recovery.
How would you describe the scope of your investigations practice, and the types of issues you are typically asked to advise on?
While the skills you bring are the same, every investigation is different and comes with its own context and complexities.
My practice spans regulatory investigations, internal investigations and public inquiries. So, for example, an investigation might involve supporting a client responding to regulator or Police inquiries through document requests or at interviews, or it might involve leading an internal investigation by gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses and producing a report.
My recent work has focused on financial services and capital markets, but I’ve been involved in investigations across a broad range of sectors, including transport, infrastructure, telecommunications, health, energy and sport. I typically work for private clients (either organisations or individuals), but I’ve also acted for regulators and served as a solicitor to judicial inquiries – one in Gibraltar and one in the Cayman Islands.
The range of issues I’ve dealt with is pretty varied – fraud, market manipulation, sanctions, money laundering, financial advice, contractual breaches, health and safety incidents, transport accidents, employee misconduct, consumer law, privacy breaches, judicial misconduct and the regulation of fertility treatments, among other things.
Is there a common thread?
The common thread in investigations is helping understand what has happened, why and to assist in charting a clear path forward.
Increasingly, whether started by a regulator or self-initiated, clients see investigations not just as a crisis to manage but as a catalyst for strengthening governance and culture. That’s a really positive shift, and one I always aim to support.
You spent significant time practising internationally. How does that experience shape your approach in New Zealand?
My years in London were invaluable.
I was exposed to large-scale, cross-border investigations and, following the global financial crisis, to the evolution of global regulatory standards in managing non-financial risks. That perspective is increasingly relevant here in New Zealand.
New Zealand regulators regularly draw on learnings from offshore. Being able to tap into how investigations are approached in other jurisdictions, and what’s animating regulators globally, helps ensure our support is practical, current and robust.
Being part of a team commissioned to produce skilled person reports for the Financial Conduct Authority also sharpened my focus on what it means to be trusted as an independent investigator - and the responsibilities that come with that role.
The UK Post Office Horizon IT inquiry has exposed serious failures in how internal investigations were conducted. What lessons stand out for you?
The Post Office inquiry is a watershed moment for investigations practitioners and for the legal profession as a whole.
It has exposed the potentially devastating consequences if independence, process and integrity are compromised. The guidance issued by the UK Solicitors Regulation Authority against the backdrop of the Post Office scandal has reinforced what should always have been clear: there must be clear boundaries between investigative teams and organisational interests, and investigation processes must be independent, fair and robust. A well-thought through written terms of reference helps manage risks from the outset.
How do you approach sensitive workplace investigations where discretion and independence are critical?
Sensitive matters demand a careful balance of empathy, rigour and discretion.
You’re often dealing with people’s careers and reputations, so fairness to all, respect and confidentiality are paramount. Building trust with everyone involved is essential.
You're also dealing with people from very different backgrounds and roles, so the ability to relate to a wide range of people and get them comfortable with the process really matters.
In this regard, conducting investigations is frequently not glamorous. I've interviewed people in small rooms who have chain-smoked through the whole interview, had a dog lick my foot under the table throughout an interview, and conducted an entire interview standing because someone couldn't sit down due to a sore back. That unpredictability, and flexing my approach, is part of what makes each investigation unique. Being good-humoured and not taking yourself too seriously certainly helps!
What draws you to this area of practice?
Investigations typically require both forensic analysis of the facts and a real understanding of how organisations operate and how people behave.
I find that interplay genuinely interesting.
There’s often an aspect of crisis management too, with a lot of eyes on the issue, which keeps things interesting. Clients place a great deal of trust in us during what are often challenging moments. In moments of crisis, it’s reassuring to have experience behind you.
Some of the most intense regulator investigations start with a dawn raid or unannounced search. The most memorable one I’ve been involved in led to a judicial review in which we successfully challenged the legality of the search warrant.
How do class action risk and legal privilege factor into investigations work in New Zealand?
These considerations are increasingly significant.
The investigations landscape is evolving, with greater regulatory scrutiny and growing alignment between regulatory activity and civil litigation risk, including follow-on class actions.
Decisions made early in an investigation, such as how it’s structured and how findings are documented, can have downstream consequences. Legal privilege must be carefully established and maintained, with close attention to New Zealand-specific law in this area.
How is technology changing the way investigations are conducted?
That's quite a massive question!
In summary though, technology has transformed both the evidence available in investigations and how we manage and analyse it. Advanced document review platforms and AI-assisted analytics are now essential tools, and this is an area we've invested in at Russell McVeagh. Having ready access to these tools is one advantage of running an investigations practice within a top-tier firm – together with the benefit of having first-class legal specialists to hand no matter what the investigation is about.
Do investigations ever lead to litigation?
Absolutely – quite often, in fact.
I continue to practise as a litigator, and that’s a significant advantage for clients. Some regulatory investigations evolve into enforcement action or civil or criminal proceedings. In recent years I have acted on an RBNZ proceeding under the AML CFT Act, multiple civil proceedings brought by the FMA and Commerce Commission in the Hight Court and in criminal proceedings in the District Court initiated by both the Commerce Commission and the New Zealand Customs Service. The latter is responsible for the New Zealand sanctions regime.
Being able to support clients through the entire lifecycle, from initial response and remediation through to strengthening processes and controls and any subsequent litigation, provides continuity and strategic coherence.