Most firms ask what happened. The more important question is whether what happened is provable, material, and worth the cost of a fight. This page explains exactly how we make that determination — for both False Claims Act and employment cases.
Access to justice starts with clarity. Not every difficult situation is a legal case. Not every legal case is worth pursuing. Our job — before filing anything — is to determine honestly whether yours should be. We work on contingency. You pay nothing unless there is a recovery. But that arrangement only works when the evaluation is rigorous from the start.
When a case that has passed this evaluation reaches opposing counsel, DOJ, or a federal judge, it arrives with an implicit signal: this matter survived a filter that most plaintiff firms don't apply. That changes the dynamic before the first call, the first brief, and the first settlement conversation.
Defense firms make an immediate assessment of plaintiff's counsel when they receive a complaint. A transparent, documented evaluation process — one that applies the same criteria DOJ uses when deciding whether to intervene — is one of the strongest opening credibility signals a plaintiff's attorney can send.
Discovery reveals facts that weren't disclosed at intake. The cases that hold their value through that process are the ones built on complete, honest information from the beginning — not the ones that started with the most optimistic framing.
This process applies to every matter that reaches a consultation — False Claims Act and employment alike. The phases overlap and the questions differ by case type, but the underlying discipline is the same.
Before analyzing the merits, we establish the basics: who was involved, what happened, when it occurred, and where. We immediately assess statute of limitations, jurisdiction — Oregon, Washington, or federal — conflicts of interest, and whether any urgent legal deadlines require immediate action.
What we are actually looking for at this stage is not just facts — but signals. Is there a pattern, not just an isolated incident? Is there a decision point where something changed? Is there a disconnect between what was officially said and what actually happened? Those signals determine whether deeper analysis is warranted.
This is the most consequential phase. The question is not "was this unfair?" It is "was this illegal — and can we prove it?" The analysis diverges here by case type.
In every employment case consultation, we come back to two questions:
What did your employer say was the reason?
What does your gut tell you the real reason was?
That second answer is usually where strong cases live — or where weak ones reveal themselves. People are highly intuitive about what happened to them. If the honest answer is "he just didn't like me," that's not an actionable case. If the honest answer connects to protected status or activity, we look harder.
Did the government pay money based on something that was not true?
Cases are built on evidence — not on what we believe happened or what feels true. In the evaluation phase, we assess what documentation exists, who can corroborate the account, and whether the story is internally consistent. We also assess witness credibility, including the client's own. Discovery will reveal everything. We need to know the full picture before anyone else does.
Do not copy, remove, or forward documents from your employer's systems before speaking with an attorney. The manner in which evidence is obtained can affect both your legal standing and your credibility with the government or a court. This is one of the first questions we address — before any documents change hands.
We do not provide damage estimates at initial intake. There is a practical reason for this that has nothing to do with caution: the first day we meet a client is the best day their case will be. Discovery reveals facts that change the picture. If we give someone a number at the outset, that number anchors their expectations — and when the real picture emerges through litigation, a fair outcome can feel like a loss even when it isn't.
What we do assess is the nature of the harm, the strength of the liability theory, and the realistic recovery path. For employment cases, that means the protected class narrative, the credibility of the facts, and the economic and emotional harm. For FCA cases, it means the scale of the fraud, the number of false claims, and the government's likely interest in the recovery.
Government intervention in a qui tam case is the single most consequential variable in FCA practice. When DOJ intervenes, success rates rise significantly and relator shares are more predictable. When DOJ declines, the relator bears the full cost and risk of litigation.
Whether DOJ will intervene depends on the strength of the evidence, the clarity and scale of the fraud, the government's existing interest in the defendant or program, and the efficiency with which the case can be proven. Rob evaluated FCA matters from inside the Department of Justice — he understands what drives that decision in a way that cannot be learned from the relator's side alone.
The X-factor in employment cases is not the law — it is the story. Specifically: is the client a credible witness, does the narrative make intuitive sense to someone who wasn't there, and does the employer's stated reason create more questions than it answers? Those are jury questions, and they drive settlement value long before any case reaches trial.
Cases that have strong liability but weak narrative credibility settle at a discount. Cases with compelling, internally consistent stories — even with modest damages — often produce better outcomes than the numbers alone would predict.
These are the threshold questions we apply to every potential FCA matter. Working through them honestly — before a consultation — makes the evaluation faster and more useful for both of us.
Does the company receive federal money — Medicare, Medicaid, VA, a federal contract, a federal grant, TRICARE, or another federal program? If the answer is no, the federal False Claims Act does not apply.
Do you have direct knowledge of the conduct — not what you heard from someone else, but what you personally witnessed, handled, or discovered? Hearsay alone is not sufficient.
Do you have any corroborating evidence — documents, records, emails, billing data, or other material that supports your account? A case built entirely on one person's testimony is difficult to develop.
Has this conduct already been reported through a news story, a government audit, a prior lawsuit, or a congressional investigation? If so, the public disclosure bar may apply — a threshold legal issue that must be evaluated before filing.
Has another attorney already filed a qui tam complaint on this same conduct? The first-to-file rule bars subsequent relators from pursuing the same fraud. This is a threshold issue that must be checked before any filing.
Did the conduct occur within the last six years? The FCA has a six-year statute of limitations from the date of the violation, with a ten-year outer limit in some circumstances. Older conduct requires careful analysis.
"Walk me through when everything changed — what happened, and what did they say about it?"
"Setting aside what they said — what does your gut tell you actually drove this decision?"
"Were there other people in your workplace who experienced similar treatment — especially others in the same protected class?"
"Did you report what was happening — and if so, to whom? A coworker, a supervisor, HR? What happened immediately after?"
"Are there emails, texts, or performance records that either support or complicate your account? Are there witnesses who saw what happened?"
"If we subpoenaed every email, every text, and every performance record — what would they show about you, and what would they show about them?"
"Setting aside money for a moment — what outcome actually matters most to you? That question shapes how a case should be pursued and what resolution looks like."
Every case that passes this evaluation arrives at opposing counsel's desk, at the Department of Justice, or in front of a federal judge with an implicit signal attached: this matter survived a rigorous filter that applies the same criteria the government uses when deciding whether cases are worth its time.
That matters in FCA cases during the seal period, when DOJ is forming its first impression of the relator and their counsel. It matters in employment cases, where defense firms make an immediate assessment of whether plaintiff's counsel is serious. And it matters to the clients themselves — because honest evaluation upfront means that the case they bring forward is the strongest, most credible version of their situation.
We show our work because the cases that make it through this process are worth showing.