The Intrigue of Qui Tam Law: A Paralegal’s Perspective – Q2 2025 Facts & Findings

Change can be difficult. I came from a background as a paralegal in more traditional legal fields, such as commercial litigation and medical malpractice. I was given an opportunity to transition into a lesser-known area of law called qui tam. Breaking away from what we know is challenging, but it can also breathe life into a stale routine. After taking the plunge, my first observation was that qui tam was quite different from any legal field I had worked in. This new world of fraud, whistleblowers, law enforcement, and government intervention was an interesting change. Whenever I spoke about my new position, however, I was frequently asked the question you may be asking now: “What is qui tam?”

Qui tam harkens back to the Middle Ages when subjects of a king were rewarded for reporting law violations. Qui tam is derived from the Latin phrase “qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur,” meaning “he who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself.”1

Fast forward to more recent times, and we typically see qui tam actions filed under the federal False Claims Act (FCA), a law passed in 1863 during the Civil War to address the problem of widespread fraud by defense contractors. The FCA was substantially amended in 1986.2 FCA consequences can be severe. Any person who knowingly submits or causes submission of a false claim to the government is liable for three times the government’s damages plus a penalty between $5,000 and $10,000. However, the damages can be reduced if the offending individual or entity cooperates with the government. Other actions can trigger liability under the FCA, such as making a false record or statement or conspiring to commit an FCA violation.3

Over 30 states have similar false claims laws that were enacted to permit private citizens to assist government entities in identifying and reporting fraud and even to litigate against entities and individuals on behalf of the government. The FCA and most state false claims laws have a notable exception known as a “public disclosure bar,” which prohibits bringing a qui tam action if the litigation is based on previously publicly disclosed allegations or transactions unless the person bringing the suit is an original source of the information.4

Private citizens who file lawsuits identifying fraud are commonly known as whistleblowers. The term for a whistleblower in a qui tam lawsuit is “relator.” A relator is usually an insider, frequently a current or former employee, who has access to confidential information showing that their employer has been committing fraud against the government. When a relator files a qui tam lawsuit under the FCA, it is filed under seal. The government then investigates the allegations without alerting the defendants and decides whether to intervene. If they choose to intervene, which they do in only about 20% of the cases, the seal is lifted, the lawsuit becomes public, and the defendants are served. If they decide not to intervene, the relator may move forward independently. However, government intervention tends to bolster the relator’s case.5

A relator bringing a qui tam lawsuit can benefit significantly. When a qui tam action is successful, the relator receives a portion of the government’s monetary recovery plus attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The relator’s recovery share is generally between 15% and 30%. In 2024, the US Department of Justice reported $2.9 billion in False Claims Act recoveries, with over $400 million in relator share awards.6

However, this benefit is not easily achievable. A relator’s role can be highly stressful. These lawsuits can take a while to resolve, so relators may need to dedicate many years of time and attorney assistance to the effort. They may feel isolated since they cannot discuss the case with anyone other than the legal team. The relators may have already complained internally at their places of employment and been subjected to retaliation, ranging from disparagement to demotions or even termination. It is not easy for whistleblowers to persevere through these challenges.

Fortunately, the FCA protects whistleblowers from employer retaliation. Prohibited retaliation includes termination, suspension, demotion, threats, and harassment. Whistleblowers who have experienced any of these types of discrimination are entitled to the reinstatement of their positions with two times the back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages such as litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.7

To illustrate the effect that a qui tam case can have on those involved, we can turn to the lawsuit that Robert Ferro, PhD, filed against Northrop Grumman Corp. and other entities in 2002, alleging that they provided and billed the government for defective microelectronic parts. It was not until November 2008 that the government investigated his allegations and chose to intervene. The government’s investigation found that Northrop and its predecessor failed to conduct proper testing and qualification of certain parts, which led to the integration of defective parts into satellite equipment. It also determined that the defendants misrepresented and concealed specific facts on the reliability of the parts. The lawsuit’s settlement was announced in April 2009, seven years after its initial filing, in the amount of $325 million. This was the largest amount ever paid by a defense contractor in a qui tam case. Dr. Ferro received $48.75 million as his share of the recovery.8 If you are wondering, rewards are subject to taxes.

A qui tam lawsuit typically lasts three to five years, but cases can continue for up to a decade. Keeping files organized is especially critical with the more complex matters that take many years to resolve. While organizing documents is always important for paralegals, it is particularly vital in a qui tam lawsuit. It is not unusual for many years to pass from when documents are received to when they are needed. Preserving and locating old records can be challenging, so paralegals would greatly benefit from a structured and clearly labeled filing system.

Besides the fact that qui tam actions are filed under seal, they are also different from other lawsuits in that they are frontloaded. The relator’s legal team does a lot of heavy lifting in the weeks and months leading up to the complaint filing, and the paralegal is an integral part of that team. The paralegal may be asked to meet with the relator and attorneys, summarize the meetings, perform investigative research, and create witness and document lists. The discovery process also differs as the relator’s team must disclose to the government all the information supporting the case they have already obtained before they can file the complaint. Once the relator’s team files the qui tam complaint, the government conducts a sealed investigation to confirm the allegations.

Defending a qui tam lawsuit presents its own set of challenges. The defendant must either demonstrate that the relator’s claims lack sufficient factual support to establish liability or damages under the FCA or present compelling legal arguments that could succeed in a motion to dismiss. Defendants can also engage in settlement negotiations or attempt to persuade the government not to intervene.

The complexities of qui tam law can be attractive to paralegals who enjoy diving deep into a case and working on a matter for an extended period, as the unfolding story is often compelling. In other areas of litigation, paralegals could have significant caseloads where their involvement is superficial and fleeting, particularly with claims that settle or resolve quickly. Conversely, the niche of qui tam law offers paralegals a long and fulfilling journey through uncovering facts and identifying violations. More importantly, qui tam law allows paralegals to assist in combating government fraud and returning misspent dollars to the American people.

RESOURCES
1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qui_tam_action
2 31 USC § 3729 et seq.; https://www.justice.gov/civil/false-claims-act; https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/1562
3 31 USC § 3729(a); https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USCprelim-title31-section3729&num=0&edition=prelim
4 31 USC § 3730(e)(4)
5 https://bergermontague.com/declined-vs-intervened-false-claims-actcases/
6 https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/media/1384546/dl
7 https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:31%20section:3730%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title31-ection3730)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true
8 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/northrop-grumman-corp-settles-falseclaims-act-case-defective-satellite-parts

---

Barbara A. Parkes, CP, is a paralegal at Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, and a member of the firm’s Qui Tam/False Claims Act Practice Group, through which the firm represents plaintiffs and defendants in qui tam litigation. She previously held positions at several national law firms, where she focused on commercial and health-care litigation. Ms. Parkes earned a degree in paralegal studies with honors from Manor College and received her Certified Paralegal credential from NALA. She is a NALA member and a notary public for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
email: BAP@Pietragallo.com