Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing Lawyers? The False Claims Act & Dodd-Frank
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
0 gostou•762 visualizações
Whistleblowers have been awarded more than $3 billion in False Claims Act cases against health care companies and government contractors that have defrauded the government, and this powerful financial incentive has enabled the federal government to recover more than $20 billion. Should lawyers -- like other corporate insiders -- be able to take advantage of these financial incentives for blowing the whistle on corporate fraud? I have identified five cases in which lawyers sued their former clients under federal or state False Claims Acts. This presentation explains how courts resolved the legal and ethical issues that arose in those cases. It also describes how the Securities and Exchange Commission addressed similar issues in its Whistleblower Program regulations under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais de Kathleen Clark
Mais de Kathleen Clark (20)
Último
Último (20)
Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing Lawyers? The False Claims Act & Dodd-Frank
- 1. Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing Lawyers? The False Claims Act & Dodd-Frank Kathleen Clark Washington University in St Louis 39th ABA National Conference on Professional Responsibility San Antonio 30 May 2013
- 2. Intersection of Legal Ethics & Law of Whistleblowing
- 3. Part I: False Claims Act
- 5. 5 cases
- 6. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital of Central Calif Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 9. Retaliation
- 10. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 11. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 12. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 13. Confidentiality
- 14. $ confidentiality incentives > based on contract
- 15. $ ? confidentiality incentives > based on professional rules
- 16. $ confidentiality incentives < based on professional rules
- 17. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 18. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 19. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 20. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 21. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 22. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens Attorneys “should be encouraged” to use qui tam law suits to expose fraud MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 23. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 24. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 25. US ex rel Doe v X Corp ED VA 1994 Vermont Agency Natl Res v US ex rel Stevens SCt 2000 Bury v Community Hospital Ca5thApp 2002 US ex rel Repko v Guthrie Clinic MD PA 2008, 2011 US ex rel Fair Laboratory Practice Assoc v Quest SDNY 2011
- 27. - voluntarily provides - original information - successful enforcement action - monetary sanctions > $1 million Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers
- 28. Dodd-Frank W petitions S.E.C. False Claims Act W = plaintiff
- 32. Dodd-Frank SEC regs Can’t use information -subject to A-C privilege or -gained thru legal representation . . . unless . . .
- 33. Dodd-Frank SEC regs . . . unless permitted by: - applicable state professional rules - SEC SOX regulation - “otherwise”
- 34. Dodd-Frank variation state-to-state confidentiality exceptions for client fraud
- 37. Op-ed: Kathleen Clark Whistleblowing Incentives for Lawyers? NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (Sept. 3, 2012)
- 38. Financial Incentives for Whistleblowing Lawyers? The False Claims Act & Dodd-Frank Kathleen Clark Washington University in St Louis KathleenClarkEsq@gmail.com 314-827-4081