DOJ now accepting Qui Tam cases from lawyers revealing client secrets

[David823]

DOJ now accepting Qui Tam cases from lawyers revealing client secrets.  There is a case now wherein DOJ attorneys have allowed an attorney, who was the attorney of record for the company in question, to use information that the attorney gained by representation of their client.  

This now means to the contracting community that attorney/client privilege cannot be relied upon.  In this instance, the attorney in question had a twenty year relationship with the company.  Then, using information obtained by the company relying upon attorney/client privilege, the attorney filed a Qui Tam action in the hopes of gaining the 15% fee.  Ironically, the company had relied upon the advice of the attorney in this matter.  The advice was then either faulty or made in bad faith.

The company in question appears to be without an actual problem but it appears, from the DOJ inquiry that mischaracterization of information was supplied to the DOJ.  

As a matter of public policy, the contracting community needs to be apprised that there is an erosion of attorney client privilege.

 

[formerfed]

Just because DOJ accepted the quI tam case doesn’t mean the attorney isn’t clear.  That’s a violation of attorney/client privilege which could set the attorney up for a malpractice suit or disbarment.  

[David823]

Unfortunately, with the protections for relators in such a matter, we, the various companies involved in this action, have not yet had the relator name revealed.  There are, as I have discovered, a number of companies that have fallen prey to this practice.  

If there is any advice or method anyone knows to force the DOJ to release the name of the relator, please pass it on to this blog.

So far, it seems well over $1.0 million has been spent by the companies just on the discovery aspect of this matter.  

 

[Retreadfed]

This is nothing new.  I am aware of cases like this going back 30 years.  The fact that the relator may have been involved in the fraud does not bar the relator from bringing the complaint.  Instead, if successful, the relator will get a smaller piece of the recovery than otherwise.