1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Attorney Fees for Claim Preparation Are Recoverable, Despite Contingency Arrangement

Attorney Fees for Claim Preparation Are Recoverable, Despite Contingency Arrangement

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.19.12

In SUFI Network Servs., Inc. v. U.S. (June 18, 2012), the Court of Federal Claims granted SUFI, represented by C&M, summary judgment, holding that SUFI is entitled to attorneys' fees as an equitable adjustment pursuant to the common-law test of foreseeability applicable to NAFI contractors when FAR regulations do not apply. The CFC analyzed SUFI's claim under the Federal Circuit's seminal Bill Strong decision, finding that, even under a FAR analysis, SUFI's claimed legal fees (calculated on an "hours times rate," or lodestar, basis) were not precluded by the existence of a contingency agreement and were recoverable because they were for contract administration, as opposed to claim prosecution.


Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25

A Sign of What’s to Come? Court Dismisses FCA Retaliation Complaint Based on Alleged Discriminatory Use of Federal Funding

On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future....

View All Insights