Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

Client Alerts

Fish Alert: Second Circuit Finds that False Claims Act Does Not Give Attorneys License to Disclose Confidential Client Information in Violation of State Rules

December 4, 2013

Client Alerts

Fish Alert: Second Circuit Finds that False Claims Act Does Not Give Attorneys License to Disclose Confidential Client Information in Violation of State Rules

December 4, 2013

Back to News Listing
Second Circuit Finds that False Claims Act Does Not Give Attorneys License to Disclose Confidential Client Information in Violation of State Rules
Second Circuit Finds that False Claims Act Does Not Give Attorneys License to Disclose Confidential Client Information in Violation of State Rules Corporate America can breathe a sigh of relief; attorneys cannot disclose confidential client information in violation of state ethics rules to bring qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). See United States v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., — F.3d —, 2013 WL 5763181 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2013).

On October 25, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a qui tam action and simultaneous disqualification of the relator corporation, its three members, and the relator corporation’s counsel from bringing future qui tam actions against Defendants based on the same facts. Id. The Court’s analysis hinged on its conclusion that the FCA does not preempt state laws governing the conduct of attorneys, but rather requires courts to interpret and apply those rules in a manner that “balances the varying federal interests at stake.” Id. at *5. The Court concluded that the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (“N.Y. Rules”) implicitly strike that balance in FCA actions by providing for the disclosure of client confidences when “necessary” to prevent ongoing crime. Id. at *6. Such limited disclosure, the Court found, cannot undermine the federal objective served by the FCA—to encourage the public to report fraud being perpetrated on the government. Id. For that reason, the Court rejected the argument that the FCA requirement of full disclosure of material evidence preempted the limited disclosure provided by the N.Y. Rules. Id.

First, the easiest and best way to avoid being the target of an FCA qui tam action is to put in place mechanisms that ensure compliance with any applicable rules and regulations. Not only does this prevent actual problems from arising, but it dissuades parties from bringing frivolous actions.

Second, executives and managers can find some comfort that it is unlikely that confidential corporate information disclosed to in-house and outside counsel will later be used against the company in qui tam actions brought under the FCA. That said, this decision leaves open the possibility that protected confidences might nonetheless be used against a corporation if exemptions to state rules restricting attorney disclosure of confidential client information are satisfied (e.g., under the N.Y. Rules, it is permissible for an attorney to disclose client confidences to the extent necessary to prevent ongoing crimes).

Third, because state laws governing attorney-client privilege are likely to be enforced, corporations that are subject to a qui tam action under the FCA should actively determine whether any of the information supporting that action improperly discloses protected corporate information.

Fourth, it remains open for debate how courts are likely to treat qui tam actions brought using information obtained in violation of other state laws. The Court noted “the [FCA] permits any person … to bring a qui tam suit, it does not authorize that person to violate state laws in the process.” Id. at *5. This case suggests that courts will likely credit state laws only to the extent those laws can be balanced with the federal interests at stake in the qui tam action. Id.

How this analytical framework might be applied by courts is still murky. Most state laws do not implicate concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings in the same way the state rules governing attorney-client privilege at issue in this case do. So a complete dismissal of a qui tam action is, perhaps, less likely to be the result in light of other state law violations. However, given that state laws are not necessarily preempted by the FCA, it may behoove corporations to minimally seek exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of state laws.

For more analysis of the opinion in Quest Diagnostics, see Fish & Richardson’s blog post here. Should you have questions, please contact:

Thomas Frongillo
Principal
Boston
frongillo@fr.com
617-521-7050
Franceska O. Schroeder
Principal
Washington, DC
schroeder@fr.com
202-626-7718
Erin Battersby
Associate
Delaware
battersby@fr.com
302-778-8427
© Copyright 2013 Fish & Richardson P.C. These materials may be considered advertising for legal services under the laws and rules of professional conduct of the jurisdictions in which we practice. The material contained in this newsletter has been gathered by the lawyers at Fish & Richardson P.C. for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. Transmission is not intended to create and receipt does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Legal advice of any nature should be sought from legal counsel. For more information about Fish & Richardson P.C. and our practices, please visit www.fr.com.

 

Stay current with Fish Sign up for our Newsletter