Law of whistleblowing class # 22

The Law of

Whistleblowing

Washington University – Fall 2014

class # 22

US ex rel Holmes v

Consumers Insurance Group(10th Cir. 2003)

Reported to:

1.Her manager

2.Inspector General

3.Postal systems coordinator

Received:

$500

31 USC § 3730. . .(b) Actions by private persons. (1) A person may bring a civil action for violation of [31 USC] Section 3729 for the person and for the United States Government. . . .

31 USC § 3730(e)1) between members of Armed Forces

2) against member oåf Congress, judiciary or senior executive branch • -- if info is known to government

3) is subject of Govt’s civil suit / admin. proceeding

4) publicly disclosed • – unless brought by DOJ or original source

“original source”• has direct & independent

knowledge of information

• voluntarily provided the information to government before filing an action

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1.7 – simultaneous1.8 – multiple1.9 – subsequent1.10 – imputation1.11 – public -> private

Model Rule 1.7

1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse1.7(a)(2) - material limitation1.7(b) – informed consent +

Model Rule 1.7

1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse1.7(a)(2) - material limitation

1.7(b) - informed consent +

T.C. Theatres v Warner Bros.

(1952-53)) Cooke

represents T.C. Theatres


multipledefendantsincluding Universal

U.S. v Paramount Pictures

multipledefendantsincluding Universal

U.S. v Paramount Pictures

(1946-51))Cooke

represented Universal


Universalhad2

theories


1 – Cooke switched sides2 – Universal confided

in Cooke


substantialrelationship

test

Model Rule 1.6(b)(7)

to detect & resolve COIs

arising from L’s

change of employment . . .

Model Rule 1.6(b)(7)

. . . but only if information would not

compromise A-C privilege or

otherwise prejudice C

Preventing COIs

Keep track of your

clients & matters

Law of whistleblowing class # 22

Law

Transcript of Law of whistleblowing class # 22