This document discusses the law of whistleblowing and includes summaries of legal cases and ethics rules regarding conflicts of interest. It summarizes a 10th Circuit case about a whistleblower who reported to several parties and received $500, sections of the federal false claims act about whistleblower lawsuits and the definition of an "original source", and Model Rules regarding simultaneous, multiple, and subsequent conflicts between clients.

1. The Law of
Whistleblowing
Washington University – Fall 2014
class # 22

2. US ex rel Holmes
v
Consumers Insurance Group
(10th Cir. 2003)

3. Reported to:
1.Her manager
2.Inspector General
3.Postal systems coordinator

4. Received:
$500

5. 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.
. . .

6. 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.
. . .

7. 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.
. . .

8. 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

9. “original source”
• has direct & independent
knowledge of information
• voluntarily provided the
information to government
before filing an action

10. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1.7 – simultaneous
1.8 – multiple
1.9 – subsequent
1.10 – imputation
1.11 – public -> private

11. Model Rule 1.7
1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse
1.7(a)(2) - material limitation
1.7(b) – informed consent +

12. Model Rule 1.7
1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse
1.7(a)(2) - material limitation
1.7(b) – informed consent +

13. Model Rule 1.7
1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse
1.7(a)(2) - material limitation
1.7(b) – informed consent +

14. Model Rule 1.7
1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse
1.7(a)(2) - material limitation
1.7(b) – informed consent +

15. Model Rule 1.7
1.7(a)(1) - Cs directly adverse
1.7(a)(2) - material limitation
1.7(b) - informed consent +

16. T.C. Theatres v Warner Bros.
(1952-53))
Cooke
represents
T.C. Theatres

17. T.C. Theatres v Warner Bros.
multiple
defendants
including
Universal

18. U.S. v Paramount Pictures
multiple
defendants
including
Universal

19. U.S. v Paramount Pictures
(1946-51))
Cooke
represented
Universal

20. T.C. Theatres v Warner Bros.
Universal
had
2
theories

21. T.C. Theatres v Warner Bros.
1 – Cooke switched sides
2 – Universal confided
in Cooke

22. T.C. Theatres v Warner Bros.
substantial
relationship
test

23. Model Rule 1.6(b)(7)
to detect & resolve
COIs
arising from
L’s
change of employment . . .

24. Model Rule 1.6(b)(7)
. . . but only if information
would not
compromise A-C privilege
or
otherwise prejudice C

25. Preventing COIs
Keep track of
your
clients &
matters