Expert Advice -- Caveat Emptor
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.15.04
On the heels of a district court rejecting a company's reliance on expert advice in a recent False Claims Act case involving independent research and development charges (U.S. v. Newport News Shipbuilding, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 539 (E.D. Va. 2003)), the Department of Justice has filed a complaint against a major accounting firm alleging that advice provided by that firm to a number of its healthcare clients caused the clients to submit "false claims" in the form of inflated bills for Medicare patients (U.S. v. Ernst & Young, LLP (E.D. Pa., filed Jan. 5, 2004)). Read in conjunction, these cases suggest that reliance on advice from outside accounting experts and other consultants as a defense to FCA charges may not be a safe harbor, particularly in circumstances where there is reason to believe that the expert advice will be perceived as "aggressive" by the government.
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
