Should External Investigation Committee Members Be Lawyers or Psychologists? The Real Question Isn't "Which Profession Is Better," But "Who Does This Case Need?"

"A workplace bullying complaint happened at the company, and we need an external committee member. Should we hire a lawyer or a psychologist?"

"Lawyers understand the law better, but don't psychologists understand bullying better?"

Following the implementation of the new Workplace Bullying Prevention regulations on July 1, 2026, this has become a very practical multiple-choice question for dedicated workplace bullying handling units in every company.

However, asking "whether a lawyer or a psychologist is more suitable" right from the start means asking the wrong question altogether.

Core Conclusion: The law does not mandate that external investigation committee members must solely be lawyers or psychologists. According to the Ministry of Labor's Handbook for Workplace Bullying Prevention Measures, external members may include individuals with expertise and practical experience in legal affairs, psychological counseling, or other relevant domains. External professionals should possess experience handling labor rights or related matters.

Therefore, finding the right members for a workplace bullying investigation panel isn't about asking "which profession is best," but analyzing the nature of the case first to determine the right combination of external expertise required.

For labor law compliance training, board member continuing education credits, external committee members for workplace harassment/bullying, and litigation mediation representation, please contact Yesin Law Firm (Tel: +886-2-25156822; Website: https://www.yesinlaw.com).

1. Lawyers and psychologists are not a binary choice—first identify the core issue of the case.

A workplace bullying investigation is inherently neither psychological therapy nor an adversarial courtroom proceeding.

It is a professional procedure integrating factual investigation, evidence evaluation, labor regulations, organizational management, and physical/mental health and safety risk control.

If the case's core dispute centers around whether a manager exceeded management authority, whether a PIP is lawful and reasonable, whether performance reviews and transfers serve a genuine business necessity, how evidence is evaluated, how procedures are conducted, and whether actions meet statutory legal elements of workplace bullying, a lawyer specializing in labor law with investigation experience usually plays a crucial role in legal application, evidence evaluation, fact-finding, statutory element matching, and strictly maintaining procedural justice.

Because workplace bullying ultimately doesn't just ask "did the complainant suffer harm?" It must methodically verify each element:

• Did it occur while performing duties in the workplace?

  
  

• Did it exploit duty or power dynamics?

  
  

• Did it exceed necessary and reasonable business scope?

  
  

• Was it continuous or severe?

  
  

• Did it cause physical or mental health harm?

  
  

Ministry of Labor guidelines also explicitly state that workplace bullying must undergo an investigation process to determine whether statutory elements are satisfied.

However, if the core of certain cases heavily involves psychological control, group isolation, prolonged belittling, trauma responses, physical/mental health impacts, or intense emotional reactions from parties during interviews, a psychological professional experienced in workplace issues can offer crucial and distinct insights into mental health, interaction patterns, and interview communications.

So do not ask "is a lawyer better or a psychologist better?"

Instead, ask: "What is the most difficult issue to evaluate in this case?"

Perhaps a combined panel of a professional labor lawyer and a psychological counselor is the ideal setup to handle these types of workplace bullying complaints.

2. The true qualification isn't the title on a business card, but whether one knows how to professionally investigate workplace bullying.

This is the issue companies most frequently overlook.

A trial lawyer doesn't automatically know how to conduct a workplace bullying investigation; a psychologist skilled in counseling doesn't automatically know the statutory elements of workplace bullying under labor law.

Professional credentials and investigation capability are two separate things.

The Ministry of Labor's institutional design does not draw strict lines based purely on profession. According to the handbook, external professionals on an investigation panel should possess experience in labor rights or related matters, and suitable personnel should be selected based on professionalism and independence tailored to the specific nature of the conduct.

This recommendation is vital for companies building a labor compliance culture.

Because truly qualified external panel members must know how to interview complainants, respondents, and witnesses; how to construct timelines; how to spot narrative contradictions; how to cross-examine Emails, LINE messages, Teams logs, performance evaluations, shift schedules, and meeting minutes; how to distinguish objective facts, subjective feelings, and professional judgments; and finally, how to link evidence with statutory elements to draft an investigation report capable of withstanding external scrutiny.

More importantly, investigators cannot start with an answer and work backward to find evidence.

A lawyer serving as a panelist cannot turn a workplace bullying investigation into cross-examination out of trial habit; nor can a psychological counselor treat "feeling harmed" as equal to "legally established bullying" simply due to empathy for the party's feelings.

The investigator's role is neither an advocate for the complainant nor a defense attorney for the accused supervisor. What is truly needed is objective impartiality.

3. What companies should truly do is "match expertise to the case," rather than repeatedly using the same profile.

The best system for large organizations is creating a talent pool of cross-disciplinary external investigation committee members.

Upon receiving a complaint, conduct an inventory of issues first:

• Legal & Management Focus: For cases heavily involving management rights, performance evaluations, PIPs, transfers, dismissals, and legal elements, lean on specialized labor lawyers.

  
  

• Psychological & Relational Focus: For cases heavily involving long-term isolation, mental control, physical/mental health impacts, or specialized interview needs, deploy experienced psychological counselors.

  
  

• Organizational & Governance Focus: When dealing with complex organizational politics, team culture, matrix management, multinational oversight, or high volumes of employee interviews, you may even need professionals with backgrounds as board members, senior executives, HR directors, or organizational management experts in large enterprise groups.

  
  

The Ministry of Labor's current talent database for workplace bullying investigation professionals is designed around a multi-disciplinary framework spanning law, psychology, human resources, and practical domain experience.

For enterprises, one of the greatest values of external members is providing investigation independence.

If investigation results later face labor inspections, civil labor litigation, or escalate into public relations crises in the media, the question a company must answer isn't just "we hired external experts," but: "Why were these individuals selected for this specific case? How does their expertise map to the core issues? Can the investigation procedure withstand scrutiny? Can the panel provide a sincere and professional explanation to the outside world?"

This is where workplace bullying prevention truly ascends to the level of corporate governance.

Advice from Attorney Chen Ye-xin

Should external investigation committee members be lawyers or psychologists?

My answer: Do not select the profession first; analyze the nature of the case first.

If the case leans heavily toward legal disputes, strengthen the legal professional background; if mental health and interaction patterns are complex, allocate appropriate psychological expertise; if organizational management issues stand out, include HR or labor relations experts. What matters has never been the title printed on a panel member's business card, but whether the investigation team possesses expertise, experience, independence, and sound judgment simultaneously.

Business leaders in particular must understand that retaining external members isn't about "finding someone to rubber-stamp the company's agenda."

If corporate leadership has already decided that "this supervisor is too crucial, so the finding must be unsubstantiated," and hires an external member to complete a predetermined outcome—or conversely, succumbs to public opinion or social media pressure to demand a substantiated finding—the true purpose of bringing external members into the workplace bullying investigation mechanism is destroyed.

A mature labor compliance culture lets the case dictate the expert combination, lets evidence dictate facts, lets facts be tested against legal elements, and ultimately ensures that whether a claim is substantiated or not, the report clearly explains "why."

So when the next workplace bullying case involving senior executives, dozens of emails, performance evaluation disputes, employee mental health impacts, and potential labor inspections or court proceedings lands on the desk of the Chairman or General Manager, will your first question still be "is a lawyer or psychologist cheaper," or "what combination of expertise does this case require to produce an investigation report that truly withstands scrutiny?"