William M. Tucker

Counsel | He/Him/His

Overview

Will Tucker is a counsel in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts and Health Care groups. Will represents clients in a range of complex litigation and counseling engagements.

His litigation practice spans both plaintiff-side and defense work, including False Claims Act cases and claims recovery suits. Will also represents clients bringing contract claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office.

In his counseling practice Will helps clients navigate investigations and other relationships with federal and state regulators, often regarding the use of emerging technologies and implementation of new business models. His counseling practice covers fraud and abuse compliance and investigations, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act compliance audits, state licensure guidance, and state procurement procedures, among other issues.

Will maintains an active pro bono practice, including as a member of Crowell’s Racial Justice Pro Bono Task Force. He currently represents a diverse group of plaintiffs in a federal voting rights lawsuit. Will previously contributed to an amicus brief regarding the constitutional consequences of participation in insurrection, counseled a nonprofit on the HIPAA and fraud and abuse implications of a proposed business relationship, represented a mother in custody proceedings, and assisted on an affirmative asylum petition.

Will received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served on the management board of the Virginia Journal of International Law and on the inaugural board of the Law, Innovation, Security, and Technology Society. Will was also a member of the First Amendment Litigation Clinic.

Before law school, Will received his B.A. from Bowdoin College, where he majored in government and legal studies and minored in music composition.

Career & Education

    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2020
      Virginia Journal of International Law: management board
    • Bowdoin College, B.A., 2014
    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2020
      Virginia Journal of International Law: management board
    • Bowdoin College, B.A., 2014
    • District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia

William's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.25.26

FEATURE COMMENT: The Eleventh Circuit Overturns the Zafirov Decision on FCA Qui Tam Constitutionality

On September 1, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, holding that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act are constitutional because relators are not officers of the United States who occupy continuing positions established by law. The decision overturned the 2024 district court ruling that sparked a wave of constitutional challenges to qui tam suits and aligns the Eleventh Circuit with the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits on the issue. The constitutional debate is far from over, however, as the decision is limited to the constitutionality under the Appointments Clause. The court remanded the case for further evaluation of the parties’ Take Care and Vesting Clause arguments. At the same time, similar constitutional arguments are pending in the Third Circuit, related to the largest-ever FCA judgment in a non-intervened case, and multiple Supreme Court justices have already signaled potential willingness to weigh in on the qui tam provisions’ constitutionality. Crowell's FCA attorneys explain these developments and what's next in a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor....

William's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.25.26

FEATURE COMMENT: The Eleventh Circuit Overturns the Zafirov Decision on FCA Qui Tam Constitutionality

On September 1, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit issued its long-anticipated decision in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, holding that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act are constitutional because relators are not officers of the United States who occupy continuing positions established by law. The decision overturned the 2024 district court ruling that sparked a wave of constitutional challenges to qui tam suits and aligns the Eleventh Circuit with the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits on the issue. The constitutional debate is far from over, however, as the decision is limited to the constitutionality under the Appointments Clause. The court remanded the case for further evaluation of the parties’ Take Care and Vesting Clause arguments. At the same time, similar constitutional arguments are pending in the Third Circuit, related to the largest-ever FCA judgment in a non-intervened case, and multiple Supreme Court justices have already signaled potential willingness to weigh in on the qui tam provisions’ constitutionality. Crowell's FCA attorneys explain these developments and what's next in a “Feature Comment” published in The Government Contractor....