HomeWhistleblower ServicesQui Tam Lawyers

Qui Tam Lawyers

For over 30 years, our qui tam attorneys have been representing whistleblowers who seek rewards under the False Claims Act’s qui tam provisions.

When employees witness fraud in government contracting, they seek a fierce and experienced ally they can trust. A qui tam lawyer can help them file a qui tam lawsuit correctly and obtain a monetary award. They seek out the hard-hitting and successful whistleblower law firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto for top legal representation and protection.

Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto was the only whistleblower law firm nominated as one of the Top 50-Elite Plaintiff’s Law Firms in 2019. Each of the partners has an AV Preeminent® rating from the Martindale-Hubbell® Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers.™ Ratings reflect a combination of achieving a Very High General Ethical Standards rating and a Legal Ability numerical rating.

If you have firsthand knowledge of contracting fraud or violations against the government, contact the law firm of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto to file a qui tam lawsuit. The firm’s qui tam cases have resulted in the U.S. government recovering hundreds of millions of dollars stolen each year from American taxpayers.

“[T]he False Claims Act has provided ordinary Americans with essential tools to combat fraud…their impact has been nothing short of profound.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Department of Justice, remarks at the 25th anniversary of the False Claims Act (January 31, 2012)

“The False Claims Act whistleblower law is the most powerful tool the American people have to protect the government from fraud.”

Former Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery , Remarks at American Bar Association’s 10th National Institute on the Civil False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement (2014)

Notable False Claims Act Whistleblower Cases

Our qui tam attorneys have represented all types of government and non-government whistleblowers who report fraud across several sectors. The partners currently represent qui tam whistleblowers from every continent on earth (except Antarctica) in pursuing whistleblower reward cases under U.S. laws.

Furthermore, our approach is unique. Our attorneys work as a team on many qui tam cases, which allows us to be more effective in winning cases. Our False Claims Act cases are filed under seal. This means they are confidential until the government decides to intervene and the court unseals the case. However, we’ve curated a list of the firm’s landmark whistleblower cases which are public, including:

  • Qui tam whistleblower Daniel Richardson, a former Senior District Business Manager for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), prevailed in one of the largest qui tam cases filed against a major pharmaceutical company for “off label” marketing and illegal kickbacks.
  • False Claims Act James Connolly, who successfully used the California False Claims Act to hold the multinational financial services company HSBC accountable for overcharging the California Public Employees Retirement System in foreign currency trading.
  • False Claims Act whistleblower Dr. Aaron Westrick, who forced the recall of thousands of unsafe bulletproof vests sold to law enforcement and the U.S. military – effectively saving thousands of lives as a result.
  • False Claims Act whistleblower Shahiq Khawaja, who successfully filed a federal and state qui tam lawsuits against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for illegally awarding a $14M contract to Metaformers Inc.

The Firm’s Qui Tam Attorneys

The founding partners at our qui tam law firm are instrumental in writing, amending, and adapting laws to protect and reward whistleblowers who expose fraud in government programs. They advocate for the expansion of whistleblower rewards as the cornerstone of effective whistleblower protection. Additionally, they have filed numerous amicus briefs in the Supreme Court on a host of issues, from the constitutionality of the False Claims Act to the scope of numerous anti-retaliation or reward laws.

Stephen Kohn, Founding Partner
Stephen M. Kohn is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading qui tam and whistleblower attorneys. He won the largest ever individual tax whistleblower reward/qui tam payment for UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld ($104 million), and the largest ever whistleblower reward ever paid to an individual under the related action provisions of the IRS, SEC and DOJ programs ($177 million).

Michael Kohn, Founding Partner
Michael D. Kohn has successfully represented whistleblowers in cases against some of the nation’s largest corporations and law firms, including Georgia Power Company, Brown & Root and Ashland Oil Company. He has also won numerous whistleblower cases against federal, state and local governments.

David Colapinto, Founding Partner
David K. Colapinto is a nationally recognized advocate for whistleblowers specializing in Qui Tam False Claims Act cases and whistleblower reward claims before the SEC, CFTC, and IRS. For more than 30 years he has successfully representing many whistleblowers in state and federal courts and before numerous agencies.

Mary Jane Wilmoth, Managing Partner
Mary Jane Wilmoth is the firm’s managing partner. She litigated cases involving whistleblower protection for environmental and nuclear industry whistleblowers, and Qui Tam/False Claims whistleblowers. Ms. Wilmoth joined the firm in 1992 and worked on cases and hearings that involved complex nuclear and environmental regulations. In her efforts to uphold such safeguards in the American workplace, she has helped to strengthen whistleblower rights in licensing and enforcement proceedings with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Todd Yoder, Partner
Todd Yoder specializes in representing qui tam relators in False Claims Act cases involving a wide range of industries, including healthcare, procurement, and set-aside government contracting. Additionally, Todd possesses vast experience in handling whistleblower claims reporting tax fraud, securities fraud, and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations with the whistleblower programs of the IRS and SEC.

Latest from Our Blog

  • December 6, 2022

    On December 6, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. The case concerns the issue of whether or not the U.S. government can dismiss False Claim Act whistleblowers' qui tam suits after initially declining to intervene in them. According to whistleblower attorneys, the case has tremendous implications for the efficacy of the False Claims Act. “All of the Justices’ questioning at oral argument appear to be deferential to the government’s position that the DOJ can dismiss a case that it did not initially intervene in,” said whistleblower attorney David Colapinto, a founding partner at the qui tam firm Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto. “However, the Court is struggling with what standard, if any, should be applied by courts at a hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss a whistleblower’s False Claims Act suit, years after the government has declined to intervene in the case.” "During the oral argument the government took the position that it’s just 'too bad' if the whistleblower has spent 'a ton of money' and years litigating the False Claims Act suit. That was brushed off as a reasonable risk that every whistleblower takes when filing suit," continued Colapinto, who has represented False Claims Act whistleblowers since the 1980s. "This turns the False Claims Act statute on its head. Congress created the right of a whistleblower to bring these suits without the government to protect the taxpayers." “If the ...

  • July 29, 2022

    A major False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam case is heading to trial that pits a large defense department contractor, OST, Inc., and its sole owner, Vijay Narula, against a lone whistleblower, Andrew Scollick.  Scollick blew the whistle to the government alleging that $7 million in construction contracts that were supposed to be awarded to Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) instead went to a newly formed construction company controlled by Narula.  Under the FCA, defendants are subject to treble damages (in this case, three times the value of contracts that were awarded).  The government may also disbar a company found guilty of a FCA violation, meaning that OST could be barred from obtaining additional government contracts for a period of up to three years. On July 29, 2022, in Scollick v. Narula, et al., Case No, 1:14-cv-01339-RCL, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unsealed its legal opinion denying Narula’s and OST’s motions for summary judgment. This ruling clears the way for the case to go to a jury. An earlier ruling in the case garnered much attention because it established for the first time that construction bonding companies could be held liable for defrauding the government if they had reason to know the entity they were bonding was not actually majority-owned and controlled by a service-disabled veteran. While the latest ruling dismissed the bonding defendants because they claimed to lack actual knowledge of the SDVOSB ...

  • June 22, 2022

    This article was originally published in JD Supra. On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in United States, ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. The Court agreed to hear the case which concerns the issue of whether or not the U.S. government can dismiss False Claim Act whistleblowers' qui tam suits after initially declining to intervene in them. The case also concerns what standard applies to such a dismissal if the DOJ does have such authority. There is currently a clear and intractable conflict in the circuits on this important statutory question. Under the False Claims Act, individual whistleblowers may bring qui tam lawsuits against fraudsters on behalf of the U.S. government. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has the opportunity to intervene in qui tam suits and take over the proceeding. However, when DOJ declines to intervene in and litigate the qui tam case the statute permits the whistleblower to pursue the case in the name of the United States and to litigate the case against the defendant in federal court. In instances where the DOJ does initially intervene, it has the authority to dismiss the suit by giving the whistleblower notice of a motion to dismiss and the opportunity for a hearing on the motion. The Supreme Court will resolve whether DOJ’s dismissal authority extends to cases in which the DOJ initially declined to intervene but later seeks to intervene to dismiss the whistleblower’s suit. False Claims Act whistleblowers have ...

In addition to these highly effective laws, Congress recently enacted an Auto Safety Whistleblower Reward law and is considering strengthening the wildlife/seafood/lumber-importation whistleblower reward laws. There is also a qui tam whistleblower reward law for seamen who report ocean pollution on the high seas.