Browsing: / Home
Shortlink

It’s Official — K&G Law Group has the largest settlement in Virginia for 2018

By Zachary Kitts on February 15, 2019 in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am quite pleased to announce that a case of mine — the $20.7 million settlement in the qui tam case styled U.S. ex rel. Arven v. Virginia Neurological Birth Injury Fund, et al., — has been named the largest civil settlement in Virginia for 2018.

This is the second year in a row that one of my cases has made the list of Virginia’s largest settlements — in 2017 the $4.2 million settlement in U.S. ex rel. Morrow v. Fredericksburg Hospitalist Group, et al., made the list at number 11.  And, longtime-readers will recall that in 2012 I just barely missed number one with my firm’s $18.1 million settlement in US ex rel. Chao v. Calnet, Inc., et al.

Many thanks are due to many different people, including of course the courageous clients, my esteemed co-counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Brian Hudak, former co-counsel John Thomas, and former AUSA Ted Radway, who initially had the case…

You can click here for the third-person version on my firm’s main webpage…and we will keep our fingers crossed for 2019!

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

Federal False Claims Act case against Virginia Birth Injury Fund settles for $20.7M

By Zachary Kitts on January 23, 2019 in , ,

 

Virginia Qui Tam and False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal False Claims Act Settlement of $20.7 million against the Virginia Neurological Birth Injury Fund

I am pleased to announce some old/new news — late last year a federal False Claims Act case in which I was involved settled for $20.7 million against the Virginia Neurological Birth Injury Fund.

I was co-counsel on the case with Scott Austin of GentryLocke.  The Richmond-Times Dispatch had an article about the settlement recently; this was actually the second article in the RTD about the case.  The first came out in April of 2017 when the Fund itself confirmed the existence of a DoJ investigation into allegations that the Fund had violated the federal False Claims Act…

History and Purpose of the Virginia Neurological Birth Injury Fund

The Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Program was created in 1987 to address a rise in medical malpractice insurance rates for obstetricians.  Such rates were — and still are — the highest of any health care provider.  There is a simple reason for this.  The monetary damages that result from serious birth-related injuries to children often require life-long care for the child.  In addition to the obvious expenses the child’s family incurs, the nature of neurological injuries often limits the ability of the child to work and earn a living.

The Program’s enabling legislation, codified at Va. Code. Ann. § 38.2-5000 et seq. removed these medical malpractice claims from the tort system.  The law provides an alternative means for compensating those affected by birth-related neurological injuries.  The Birth-Injury Program does not receive state funds.  Funding is instead provided through four sources: Participating physician and hospital fees; assessments of liability insurance carriers operating in Virginia; and assessments of non-participating physicians practicing in Virginia.

Monetary awards under the Program are exclusive.  If an injury is covered by the Program, the child is not entitled to compensation from a malpractice lawsuit.  Instead, the child is eligible for a lifetime of benefits from the Birth-Injury Program.  Admission to the Program is determined by the Virginia Worker’s Compensation Commission.

So far, so good.  So what went wrong at this innovative program that resulted in false claims to the United States?  That’s an easy one.

The Birth-Injury Fund Essentially Operated to the benefit of the Insurance and Healthcare Industries

The Fund is overseen by a nine-member volunteer board of directors.  As you might guess, the board came to be dominated by the insurance and health care industries.  Lest anyone dismiss this statement as hyperbole, the General Assembly’s Joint Legislative and Audit Review Committee (“JLARC”) issued a scathing 2002 review of the Program.   JLARC plainly stated that the primary interest of the Board has been to keep the premiums and other payments from health care industry participants as low as possible, without regard for the financial stability of the Fund.

The Fund Tried to Keep Fees and Costs as Low as Possible and in the process violated the federal False Claims Act

Between 1995 and 2000, the Board introduced a sliding scale assessment plan.  Under the scale, Program participants actually paid reduced dues based on the number of years that they had been involved in the Program.  This is the exact opposite of how most professional malpractice policies work.  Generally speaking, Professional liability insurance premiums increase over time because the longer the policy has been in effect, the higher the possibility that a claim will be made.

Similarly, insurance premiums also typically increase for high-volume providers.  This is also easy to understand.  Statistically speaking, a hospital that has 11,000 births per year year will have a greater chance of a serious birth injury.  Despite this mathematical certainty, hospitals were assessed a fee of $55 per live birth up to a maximum of $200,000.

By reducing the fees of these participating insurance companies, hospitals, and physicians, the Program reduced its own income by 65 percent.  In 1998, the Program received only $1,025,792 in annual dues from the participating liability insurers, participating hospitals, and non-participating physicians combined to provide for nearly 40 members of the Program.  Bearing in mind that neurological birth injuries are the most costly injuries of any medical malpractice case, the Program collected dues of only $26,300 per Program member in 1998.

Even more incredibly, in 1998 the Fund declared a complete moratorium on fees altogether.

“Dual-Eligibles” and the Birth Injury Fund

So what steps did the Fund take to limit its expenditures?  Part of the answer is that it passed expenses on for “dual eligible” patients.  To be dual eligible simply means that a person has overlapping coverage by both a government payer and a private plan.  In addition to paying for the care of a “dual eligible” beneficiary, private insurers are required to reimburse claims erroneously paid by Medicaid.

And that is because Medicaid is always the “payer of last resort.”

The current Medicaid statute ( found at 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(25)(A)-(B)) requires States who receive federal funds for Medicaid to “take all reasonable measures to ascertain the legal liability of third parties … to pay for care and services available under the plan,” and requires States to “seek reimbursement from the third party,” and to “prohibit any health insurer (including … [a] party that is, by statute, contract, or agreement, legally responsible for payment of a claim…) … from taking into account that the individual is eligible for or is provided medical assistance under a plan under this title.”

The Fund qualified as a “party that is, by statute, contract, or agreement … legally responsible for the payment of a claim.”  Therefore, Medicaid properly covers only those expenses not paid for the Fund.  The Fund tried — and for years, succedded — in making itself the “payer of last resort.”  In the process, the Fund caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs.

And that was the basis of the federal False Claims Act case filed by my firm and Gentry Locke in 2015.

The other part of the answer is that the Fund often took an combative approach to Fund participants.  And, what’s worse, the more expensive the benefit sought by a given participant, the more combative the Fund became.

But not any more.

The Settlement Agreement that resolved the federal False Claims Act cases is attached, as is the order of dismissal entered on September 22, 2018.  In addition to the payment, the Fund also agreed to make certain disclosures which you can also read on thier website.

 

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

VaQuiTamLaw.com author Zachary Kitts quoted in Virginia Lawyers Weekly on pleading standards under the federal False Claims Act

By Zachary Kitts on January 9, 2019 in ,

 

VaQuiTamLaw.com author Zachary Kitts quoted in Virginia Lawyers Weekly on pleading standards under the federal False Claims Act

cover of Virginia Lawyers Weekly

 

The latest version of Virginia Lawyers Weekly contains a quote by yours truly on the topic of federal pleading standards for federal False Claims Act cases and the recent Fourth Circuit opinion in .  Congrats to reporter Matt Chaney on his fine article, which also appeared in the South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

I do indeed find this opinion troubling.  The opinion is from December 26, 2018, but for the obvious reasons it didn’t get much publicity at first.  The caption of the case is United States ex rel. David Grant v. United Airlines ; the appeal arises from an Order of the U.S. District Court in South Carolina dismissing relator’s Second Amended Complaint.

Relator’s Second Amended Complaint Failed to Allege Sufficient Details

As regular readers know (because it has been a recurring theme on this blog for more than ten years) a well-pled Complaint is critical.  The heightened pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) apply to FCA actions, and failure to comply with Rule 9(b) is treated as a failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) are commonplace in FCA litigation, with nearly every defendant in nearly every case arguing that the relator has failed to plead his or her claims with sufficient particularity.  There are several reasons for the heightened-pleading standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).   First, the defendant have a right to be on notice of the conduct alleged to be illegal.  Also, a stringent standard helps to eliminate fraud actions in which all the facts are learned after discovery and protects defendants from frivolous claims.

The primary reason why Rule 9(b) motions are common in FCA cases is that such a motion makes a purely legal argument.  The 9(b)/12(b)(6) motion argues that even if all of the facts alleged in the Complaint were true, the Complaint would still not state a case because it is legally deficient.  And the reason why that argument is necessary is because when a qui tam relator is present, there will normally be few — if any — facts in dispute.

Troubling aspects of the Fourth Circuit’s Opinion

Grant worked at United Airlines as a mechanic; his qui tam alleged several ways in which the airline committed violations of its contract with the United States.  For each of the violations, Grant alleged that United falsely certified that it had in fact followed the correct procedures.  In my view, the allegations of the Complaint had the kind of specificity I look for.  Grant alleged that specific tests were not performed, and he named the specific safety standards that were falsely certified; he also included the contractual provisions at issue.

However, Judge Duncan (writing for the majority) held that because Grant, as a maintenance technician, did not have access to evidence of how and if the government received or paid for the services, he could not state a claim under sections 3729(a)(1)(A) or (B).

My quote is as follows:

The majority appears to say that on one hand, you’d have to have boots-on-the-ground knowledge that an airline mechanic would have, and the person would simultaneously need to have knowledge of fairly high-level contractual dealings,” he said, “But it seems to me that they’re requiring a level of knowledge that no one person would ever have.

So yes, I find this troubling, to say the least…stay tuned readers!

 

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

DOJ Announces False Claims Act Settlement with British Airways and Iberia Airlines

By Zachary Kitts on December 11, 2018 in ,

Virginia Qui Tam and False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOJ accounces settlement with British Airways for falsely reporting international mail delivery times for international mail deliveries

I am always on the look-out for interesting and novel uses of the federal False Claims Act, and last month presented just such a case.

The Justice Department announced last month that British Airways Plc (BA) and Iberia Airlines (Iberia) have agreed to pay $5.8 million to resolve their liability under the False Claims Act for falsely reporting the times they transferred possession of United States mail to foreign postal administrations or other intended recipients under contracts with the United States Postal Service (USPS).

BA and Iberia are international airlines headquartered in Harmondsworth, United Kingdom, and Madrid, Spain, respectively.  BA and Iberia Airlines are both subsidiaries of the International Airlines Group.

The United States contracts with various airlines for the delivery of international mail.  In this case, USPS contracted with BA and Iberia to take possession of receptacles of United States mail at six locations in the United States (or at various Department of Defense and State Department locations abroad.)  BA and Iberia were to deliver that mail to numerous international and domestic destinations within certain timeframes.

It’s the sneaking around that gets you into trouble

As with most FCA cases, its the sneaking around that got them into trouble.  To obtain payment under the contracts, the airlines were required to submit electronic scans of the mail receptacles to USPS reporting the time the mail was delivered at the specified destinations.  The settlement resolves allegations that scans submitted by BA and Iberia falsely reported the time the airlines transferred possession of the mail.

The U.S. Postal Service contracts with commercial airlines for the safeguarding and timely delivery of U.S. Mail to foreign posts, including the mail sent to U.S. servicemembers deployed to foreign operating bases and other locations abroad.

This matter was handled by the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch, the USPS Office of the Inspector General, and the USPS Office of General Counsel.

A fine job by all!

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

Fraudulent heating costs charged to state and local governments in New York

By Zachary Kitts on November 27, 2018 in , , , ,

Virginia Qui Tam and False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fraudulent heating costs charged to state and local governments in New York lead to False Claims Act Settlement

This month saw a new and innovative false claims act case make its way out of New York State.  Congratulations are in order for the law firm of Getnick & Getnick!

As regular readers know, one of the main goals of this blog is to cover and explore novel uses of state false claims acts.  And no state ( to my knowledge) has made better use of its state false claims act than New York.  You can read the settlement agreement here.

The relator’s lawyers boiled this complex fraud down to very simple terms.  From 2004 to 2016, Bottini Fuel improperly held onto customer overpayments and duplicative payments for heating oil. Company officials didn’t tell customers that they had overpaid; instead, the company kept the money and used it to benefit its owners and employees.

It should come as no surprise to readers that the biggest victims of the scam were state and local governments.  According to the settlement, the biggest victims include: the Taconic Developmental Disabilities Services Organization ($281,630), the Greenhaven Correctional Facility ($145,957), Roundout Valley Central School District ($83,044) and Beacon City School District ($10,375).  A number of New York state towns received restitution, including Saugerties, Blooming Grove, Monroe, Hunter, Wappinger and Stanford.

As an interesting aside, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, about one-third of the heating oil purchased in the United States each year goes to commercial uses in the Northeast United States, and 84% of the heating oil purchased for residential use is purchased in the Northeast.

Criminal convictions and the New York FCA settlement

This particular 12-year scheme defrauded not only school districts, and local governments in New York’s Hudson Valley; interestingly, individuals and private businesses were also defrauded.  The fraud resulted in a criminal plea agreement for Morgan Fuel & Heating Company, Inc., which conducts business as Bottini Fuel.

Congratulations again to the lawyers of Getnick & Getnick for this groundbreaking settlement!

 

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

HHS-OIG seeks public comments on health care kickbacks

By Zachary Kitts on October 31, 2018 in , ,

Virginia Qui Tam and False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

HHS-OIG Issues Request for Information on Health Care Kickbacks

The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General (that’s HHS-OIG to regular readers) recently issued a request for information on kickbacks in health care programs.  The public was asked to provide comments about the interaction between the various anti-kickback statutes and how those laws impact the current push for greater “care coordination” in health care programs.  “Care coordination,” consists (I assume) of doctors, hospitals, and other interested parties communicating (at a minimum) with each other about each patient and what the patient needs.  There is also a definite push (by the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, etc.) for greater use of and access to electronic health records for patients, the theory being that greater use of electronic records would enable better care coordination.

More specifically, the request for information stated:

“This ‘Regulatory Sprint’ is focused on identifying regulatory provisions that may act as barriers to coordinated care,
assessing whether those regulatory provisions are unnecessary obstacles to coordinated care, and issuing guidance
or revising regulations to address such obstacles and, as appropriate, to encourage and incentivize coordinated
care while protecting against harms caused by fraud and abuse.”

Government efforts to reduce barriers to coordinated care

As with many things in the realm of health care law and regulation, at least some of the health care industry’s goals seem laudable.  After all, who could argue against increased communication between (for example) primary care physicians and diagnostic imaging centers or hospitals?  In fact, according to some of the AHA-aligned comments, certain hospitals and others would just love to give away electronic medical record systems (in case it is not clear, they want to do this for free!) to increase the level of communication between the various providers…more on that in a moment…

Of course, there is nothing in the law as currently written to prohibit greater “care coordination” between providers.  It is, however, a crime for a provider to offer or pay any “remuneration” in return for the referral of Medicare or Medicaid patients; these same laws severely limit a doctors’ ability to refer patients to medical businesses in which the doctors have a financial interest, a practice known as self-referral.  So what is at issue is not so much the ability of providers to coordinate the care they provide, but rather the ability of providers to make money by coordinating an individual’s health care.

TAFEF’s response to the AHA, AMA, etc.

No doubt about it, the health care industry can make some pretty powerful arguments; they certainly have enough money to pay the very best lawyers, lobbyists, wordsmiths, etc. to put a favorable spin on things.  For that reason among others I am glad to belong to Taxpayers Against Fraud, and I am glad that  TAF prepared this response to the request.  

Take for instance the desire of some hospitals to “donate” electronic health care records systems to medical groups to allow for better “coordination” in care.  As the TAF letter states, among many other problems, hospitals would have to institute some kind of eligibility criteria for a medical group to qualify for these free systems; otherwise they would be forced to provide expensive software and training to every two-bit practice that sends even one patient to the hospital.  The most likely criteria would be the volume of referrals the practice makes to the hospital, and that is where the problems start, because providers would be required to refer patients based not on the needs of the patient but rather on the needs of the practice to get the free software.

(As an aside, I was supposed to provide some assistance with this effort, but I got tied up unexpectedly in court; more on that subject later.  Extra special thanks to Ed Baker, Shelley Slade, Claire Sylvia, and Jackie DeMar and Bob Patten from TAF.)

Stay tuned, more on these developments will follow….

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

Supreme Court of Virginia Issues First Bona Fide Qui Tam Opinion

By Zachary Kitts on September 20, 2018 in , , , , ,

Virginia Qui Tam and False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supreme Court of Virginia Issues First Bona Fide Opinion on the Qui Tam Provisions of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act  — PART ONE OF TWO

At long last we have a bona fide Supreme Court of Virginia opinion concerning the qui tam provisions of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.  Not only that, but SCOVA really came through with an opinion that will benefit qui tam relators and whistleblower lawyers everywhere.

Mind you, this is just the first SCOVA opinion concerning the qui tam provisions, but it is not the first opinion concerning the VFATA – that distinction belongs to my own Lewis v. City of Alexandria, which interpreted the equitable remedies portion of VFATA in the anti-retaliation context.

This is, by the way, the last word on a case that has been going on for some time now – I first covered this case back in 2016 (!) when the hot topic in the case was jurisdictional matters.

This case presents an important issue of first impression.  In FCA litigation involving health care claims, as regular readers know, most cases have both a federal component (for payment coming from Medicare, the federal half of Medicaid, Tricare, etc.) and a state component (which covers the other half of the state’s Medicaid expenditures).

State Attorney Generals sometimes make the argument that a state is not required to pay a full relator’s share, but only a share based on what the state received. The two things are very different, as we shall see…

(As an aside, back in February of 2008 I organized the first-ever continuing legal education course on the topic of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.  There were only two or three people in attendance, but one of them was Mark Friedlander, who told me during a break that he had recently filed a qui tam case in the Circuit Court for Fairfax County, Virginia.  The case was still under seal, so he was limited in what he could say about the case, of course, but I didn’t forget…well, it turns out this was the case. Congrats to Mark, as well as to Eric Buescher, Niall McCarthy, and the team at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.)

The case was filed back in 2007 against a number of labs alleging that Virginia’s Medicaid program had been defrauded when it was overcharged for certain lab tests.  The Commonwealth declined to intervene and the case was unsealed.  Ultimately, the relators settled with the defendants in the amount of $1,250,000.  The Commonwealth’s approval was required, and given.

The relators and the Commonwealth agreed, prior to finalization of the settlement, that the relators would receive 28% of the settlement proceeds.  After settlement, however, there was a disagreement about how that 28% should be calculated.  Specifically, they disagreed about whether that 28% share should come out of the total, or gross, proceeds of the settlement, or whether the 28% share should come out of the Commonwealth’s net share of the proceeds — in other words, what remains of the $1.25M after the Commonwealth has refunded a portion of the proceeds to the United States.

The Virginia Attorney General took the position the Relator was not entitled to any portion of the funds that Virginia must repay to the federal government.  (Bear in mind, Medicaid in Virginia is a 50/50 proposition, with the Commonwealth paying half and the feds paying half).  The Virginia Attorney General also argued  that relators were not entitled to any payment from that “portion” of the settlement that addressed conduct before the VFATA was enacted.  These two arguments reduced the relator share from the agreed-upon 28%, down to 11%.

Following the procedural wrangling mentioned in previous posts, the trial court — now the Circuit Court for Fairfax County — found in favor of the relators, concluding that they were entitled to receive 28% of the gross proceeds of the settlement.

Incredibly, the Commonwealth did not make any arguments based on the plain language of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.  I say “incredibly” because in Virginia Courts, arguing about the plain language of the statute will get you a long, long way, and they must have known that.

An appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia followed, and the Supreme Court Decision was announced this month.  In a strongly worded opinion, Justice McCullough had things like the  following to say:

The Commonwealth chose not to intervene in this matter and as a result, it would be inequitable for the Relators to be undercut for performing a valuable service on behalf of the government, pursuant to the VFATA.  Inevitably, such a result could create a chilling effect on the willingness of whistleblowers to bring claims under the VFATA….

And my personal favorite:

The Commonwealth maintains that we should construe the VFATA in a way that maximizes the recovery of funds and, to accomplish this objective, we should interpret Code § 8.01-216.7(B) to reduce the relator’s share. But it is not obvious that, in the aggregate, the Commonwealth’s proposed reduction in the relator’s share will produce more revenue from qui tam actions than construing “proceeds” to mean gross proceeds. A significant reduction in the relator’s share will discourage relators from bringing these lawsuits. The Commonwealth receives nothing when a relator decides to stay home and foregoes the risk and expense associated with a qui tam suit…

In part two we will look at the Commonwealth’s arguments a bit more…as well as the arguments raised in the amicus brief submitted by the United States…

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

K&G Law Group included in the 2019 Edition of Best Lawyers in America

By Zachary Kitts on July 27, 2018 in , , ,

Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act lawyers

 

 

 

K&G Law Group included in the 2019 Edition of Best Lawyers in America

I am pleased to announce my inclusion in the 2019 edition of Best Lawyers in America.  It is always an honor to be included in such publications, and I especially like the fact that Best Lawyers in America has a bona fide qui tam practice category.

A few words about honors like Best Lawyers in America

When I talk to potential new clients, they have often read about the results obtained by my firm in past cases, or about some honor or other I received.   People sometimes ask “You handled such-and-such case and were responsible for the outcome, right?”

Well, sort of.

Yes, my firm has obtained some good results in cases over the years, but the outcome of these cases is dependent on many factors.  When I have a good result in a case — and this is true for every kind of lawyer in every kind of case — it is because I had a good client.

Stated a slightly different way, I believe in the old wisdom that the outcome of any given case is usually about 75% client, 25% lawyer.

Why is the term qui tam so important?

I usually prefer to call my practice a qui tam practice because, as regular readers know, the term “whistleblower” is  rather generic.   To some people Edward Snowden is a heroic whistleblower.  Other people think of tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand; still others think of Harry Markopolous.  All of these people are indeed whistleblowers, but none of them were qui tam whistleblowers.

So maybe the best way to put it is to say that all qui tam relators are whistleblowers, but not all whistleblowers are qui tam relators.  To me — and to many others — the term qui tam is preferable, as it refers to what is really going on in these cases; that is, someone brings suit on behalf of the government to enforce a right belonging to the government.

 

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

VaQuiTamLaw.com Author Zach Kitts named to 2018 edition of Virginia Super Lawyers

By Zachary Kitts on June 21, 2018 in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VaQuiTamLaw.com Author Zach Kitts named to 2018 edition of Virginia Super Lawyers

I am pleased to announce that I was once again included in the 2018 version of Virginia Super Lawyers magazine.  And make no mistake about it, it is indeed an honor — according to Superlawyers.com, no more than 5% of the lawyers licensed in a state can recieve this honor.

Moreover, being selected and listed one year does not by any means guarantee selection in later years.  This is my fifth year being named to Super Lawyers magazine; for two years before that I was included in the Rising Stars section based on my age.

Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas.   Lawyers included have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.  The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process. The process includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area.  The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.  Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law.

 

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter
Shortlink

Upcoming VaCLE Seminars on Hanging a Shingle and Reasonable Attorney Fees in Virginia

By Zachary Kitts on May 31, 2018 in , , ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upcoming Continuing Legal Education Seminars on Starting a Law Firm and Reasonable Attorney’s Fees in Virginia

As many of you know, for the last three years John Bredehoft and I handled the most difficult and involved part (even though I do say so myself) of three important Virginia CLEs — the Annual Employment Law Update in May of each year (through VaCLE) and then in the fall we did the annual case law update for the Virginia Bar Association’s Annual Conference of Labor Relations and Employment Law.

In all three seminars, we were responsible for reviewing interpreting the previous-year’s new case law, and it was a real pleasure to work with my good freind Bredehoft.  For decades (three decades in the case if VaCLE, and nearly five decades in the case of VBA) these seminars have been indispensable educational and networking opportunities for Virginia lawyers practicing in, or wanting to learn more about, employment law.  I myself attended these conferences from the very start of my legal career, and I have always found them to be top-notch education and social opportunities.

Prior to John and I taking over, Eddie Isler and Harris Butler handled the update portion of all three seminars for as long as I can remember, which is to say at least 12 or 13 years.  Under a new policy, however, responsibility will change every few years for this part of the seminar beginning this year.  This certainly didn’t hurt my feelings, however, because (1) it was indeed an enormous amount of work and (2) it basically took up all of the time I could afford to spend, annually, preparing and speaking at CLEs.

Alas, parting is such sweet sorrow…

So, because Bredebear and I do not have to prepare an enormous volume of new employment law cases, I am now free to speak at numerous other seminars on different topics, including two upcoming seminars through Virginia CLE — the first will be the semi-annual Hanging a Shingle seminar on July 11, 2018 and the second is Attorney Fee Awards in Virginia on August 23, 2018.  Video replays of both seminars will also be available throughout the Commonwealth at various times.

The Attorney Fee Awards in Virginia program is an updated version of a program I first put together back in 2011 — it has been quite popular over the years so we decided to do it again…

Spots are selling out fast, hope to see some or all of you there!

 

Virginia False Claims Act Lawyers

 

 

Mixx Delicious Digg Facebook Twitter