Lawyer Shoots Self in Foot with Shotgun Approach to Litigation
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.05.17
On April 4, 2017, in US ex rel. Hayes v. Allstate Insurance Co., the Second Circuit joined the D.C. Circuit in holding that the “first-to-file” rule is not jurisdictional; rather it goes to whether the plaintiff has stated a claim on which relief may be granted. In an accompanying non-precedential Summary Order, the court also upheld dismissal with prejudice as to the relator, an attorney, for violating Rule 11 by alleging that more than sixty companies – largely insurance companies – were systematically non-compliant with certain statutory obligations to reimburse Medicare even though he had no personal knowledge that all named companies had participated. In affirming the lower court, the Second Circuit concluded that denial of leave to amend to add 38 new defendants was not an abuse of discretion.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 09.15.26
GAO Indicates Reasonable Conflict of Interest Investigation Must Include Inquiry of Involved Firm
The U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recent decision in Viderity Inc.—Costs, B-424422.5, Sept. 1, 2026, offers useful insight into what constitutes a legally sufficient conflict of interest investigation. The decision arose in an unusual procedural posture: Viderity initially protested, alleging that an agency evaluator had a personal conflict of interest. After the agency took corrective action, Viderity filed a cost entitlement claim requesting that GAO direct the agency to reimburse Viderity’s protest costs. In evaluating that claim, GAO assessed whether Viderity’s underlying protest ground was “clearly meritorious.”
Client Alert | 3 min read | 09.15.26
Client Alert | 7 min read | 09.14.26
AI in Life Sciences: Ten Legal Considerations and Risks of AI Use in Drug Discovery and Development
Client Alert | 6 min read | 09.14.26
Mental Health Parity Bulletin Restates Best Practices for Evaluating Compliance

