Outten & Golden LLP’s Post

I’m very excited to announce that I’ve been promoted to partner at Outten & Golden LLP. I’m also excited to share that I will be joining my amazing partner Tammy Marzigliano as Co-Chair of the firm’s Whistleblower & Retaliation Practice Group. I could never have predicted this outcome as a law student 11 years ago. Law school tended to funnel us into one of three career paths: Big Law, legal aid groups, and clerkships. Whistleblower law was not even on my radar. So when I landed a fellowship at a plaintiff-side firm that only represented whistleblowers, it felt like I was taking a huge risk. It turned out to be a perfect fit. Whistleblowers are courageous people, though they often don’t realize it. When everyone else is going along to get along, whistleblowers see their employer do something wrong and say, “Wait! Something must be done to stop this.” Most people can’t do that. Helping my clients through the personal, professional, and financial realities of what comes next gives me real purpose. At the same time, whistleblower cases are often big, complicated, intellectually challenging matters. It feels like I’m learning new areas of law nearly every week. For those of you who’ve drifted the halls of Medicare regulations or the FAR, you know it can feel like a never-ending maze. Helping clients and the government navigate their way out of that complexity is one of the joys of the job. My colleagues at Outten & Golden have been doing this for decades, supporting employees from all walks of life: from fast food workers to investment bankers, from people in the labor movement to corporate executives. What brings it all together, and where whistleblower work fits in here, is the understanding that workers are first and foremost human beings—and that being treated fairly at work is a basic human right. Finally, although there are too many people who helped me to be a better lawyer and human being to mention, I want to acknowledge three people particularly critical to my development as a young attorney: Erika Kelton, who asked me how to say "dog" in Chichewa during my first interview and who later taught me to slow down and think deeply, and Amy Easton & Jeffrey Dickstein, who taught me how to collaborate and think as a team.

We’re thrilled to announce the launch of Whistleblower Partners, a public interest law firm dedicated to supporting, representing, and advocating for whistleblowers across the globe. Our attorneys and staff formerly practiced together at Constantine Cannon and have represented prominent clients like Frances Haugen of Facebook, Tyler Schultz of Theranos, and Ed Pierson of Boeing.   Here’s why we decided to start our firm.   Almost every whistleblower we meet is a first-time whistleblower, an everyday person who finds themselves in possession of information that throws them into a world fraught with pitfalls, learning as they go, and sometimes making mistakes that cost them dearly along the way. We’ve worked with hundreds of whistleblowers, and the one thing we see in nearly every case is how lonely and isolating the process can be. That’s why we decided to form a new kind of law firm, and why we decided to call it what we did.   We are deeply committed partners to our clients and feel a responsibility to make individuals realize the important role they play in holding corporations to account, and to show them that they are not alone in the process of bringing the information to light. Each member of our team does what we do because we know our clients are human beings who need support, not just cases on a docket.   We’re also fierce advocates for our clients, always willing to go to bat for them, and not just in their own cases. Our lawyers regularly testify in front of federal, state, and local legislatures and regulators on the role that whistleblowers have in protecting the public good. We work hard to expand the rights and protections for individuals who are willing to put their future career paths, health, and personal relationships on the line to prevent corporate fraud and misconduct.   We’re proud to be partners with anyone who makes the brave decision to speak out in the fight against fraud, corruption, and injustice, and, together with the brave individuals who choose to blow the whistle on corporate wrongdoing, dedicated to making a meaningful impact. In our work so far we’ve proven our ability to expand the boundaries of precedent to deliver results that are more fair and just to the whistleblower and the public, and we don’t plan on stopping.   Our attorneys have a track record of success, and have partnered with whistleblower clients for a number of high-profile wins, including:   * the first ever successfully resolved cybersecurity case under the False Claims Act in a case against Cisco Systems ($8.6M), * the largest settlement to date involving Iraq war fraud allegations against KBR ($108.75 million), and * the first ever monetary award made under the Motor Vehicle Safety Whistleblower Act ($24 million) by a whistleblower who exposed safety issues at Hyundai and Kia.   Today is just the beginning.    To learn more about Whistleblower Partners and get in touch with us, click on the image below to visit our website.

American lawyers are always 10 years ahead of us Brits 🗣 Whistleblowing plays an integral role in regulating how authorities and businesses behave - yet whistle-blowers are shunned The fear of reputational damage, financial consequences, criminal sanctions, that flow from whistle-blowing, positively encourages authorities, institutions and businesses to be mindful and proactive in how they behave In the UK, whistle-blowers are often perceived as mad and unbalanced people on personal misguided crusades. This perception must change. The reality is whistle-blowers (and fear of whistleblowing) are substantially responsible for: *Improving safety, reducing accidents and fatalities, risk assessing and improving *Reducing crime, whether corporate, financial, environmental or other *Improving working conditions, reducing discriminatory practices, harassment and ensuring workers are treated with respect *Speaking up for those too afraid to speak out Being a whistle-blower is courageous In the UK we don't think about the value of whistle-blowers. The lone individual who bravely speaks out when patient safety is at risk, unselfishly jeopardising their career and sanity Instead, the victim is attacked, becomes the perpetrator, and the perpetrator becomes the victim In the UK the single biggest blocker whistle-blowers face is the Employment Tribunal service A service that denies whistle-blowers access to a 'proper' legal process and system A service by design to preserve a status quo, as one establishment serves as a barrier to protect another establishment In the Employment Tribunal: *Evidence is secretive (only a handful of tribunal courts record hearings) *The onerous burden of proof means only 1 in 20 claims succeed *The imbalance between the parties is unfair - the cost of taking on a large institution such as the NHS are prohibitive. Recovery of costs is the exception, with the NHS free to spend as much of the taxpayer's money on expensive lawyers as it wishes *Unlike 6 years in the civil court, a whistle-blower has only 3 months to present their case The consequence, a whistle-blower must decide whether, having lost their job and income, they can afford to take on an institution with money to burn - regardless of how meritorious that claim may be Whistleblowing must be removed from the Employment Tribunal and allowed to proceed in the far more transparent civil court system Whistle-blowers must be allowed to engage legal representation on a fee paying basis that allows for the recovery of their legal costs spent Only with these simple yet fundamental changes will whistle-blowers be put on a equal footing and the benefits that whistle-blowers bring to improving safety, reducing crime, encouraging healthier, more inclusive, and respectful environments, happen In ten years - UK law firms will be courting whistle-blowers, as they're doing in America. It's the future #solicitors #whistleblowing #law #lawyers #employmentlaw #tribunal

A nice quick read on Employee-Related Litigation trends.

🌟 Meet Our Founder: Bob J. Gingras 🌟 In 1989, Bob J. Gingras embarked on a legal journey, starting a firm with himself and his trusted paralegal. Today, Gingras, Thomsen & Wachs has grown to four offices across the state, boasting 12 dedicated attorneys and a fantastic team of employees. 👨⚖️ Roots and Values: Raised in Minot, North Dakota, Bob learned the values of hard work, honesty, and fortitude from his parents—principles that have become the cornerstone of our firm. 🥊 A Passion for Justice: Bob has always been driven by a passion to fight for the underdog. Whether taking on big corporations, challenging insurance companies, or holding negligent parties accountable, Bob thrives on leveling the playing field for his clients. His commitment shines through in cases involving workplace sexual harassment, unfair insurance denials, or life-altering accidents caused by negligence. 🏆 Skill and Belief: Bob believes deeply in the power of the legal system to bring about justice. He is renowned for his prowess in cross-examination and his ability to secure settlements and verdicts that reflect the truth. His belief in what he does makes him compelling and a leader who inspires his team and clients. 🔍 Why Bob Loves What He Does: "There's nothing more rewarding than cross-examining the wrongdoer and achieving a result that not only speaks the truth but also makes a significant difference in the lives of our clients." Under his leadership, GTW continues to champion the rights of those we serve, ensuring that every client feels supported and valued. #MeetTheTeam #FounderStory #BobGingras #LegalExpertise #GTWTeam #JusticeForAll

When someone, often an employee, reports the illegal actions of a company, they are known as a whistleblower. But do these individuals have any protection from the adverse actions that may be taken against them after they blow the proverbial whistle? The answer is yes. Learn more in this blog from the attorneys of Barrett & Farahany. https://ow.ly/Enk850Ro70E #BarrettFarahany #EmploymentLaw #Whistleblower #WhistleblowerProtections #Attorney #EmploymentLawyer #Law #Legal

After you’ve blown the proverbial whistle on your employer, turn to Bantle & Levy. Our executive representation attorneys will utilize the most encompassing legal protections to ensure your reputation and career are not tarnished. https://ow.ly/2FYT50RKIII #BantleLevy #EmploymentLawyer #EmploymentLaw #ExecutiveRepresentation #Whistleblower #Retaliation #Law #Legal #NewYork

The High Court's recent ruling significantly shifts the legal landscape for corporate executives, potentially lowering the bar for their prosecution in cases of corporate misconduct. Previously, to hold an individual accountable for corporate fraud, explicit wrongdoing or deliberate financial misappropriation had to be proven. However, the ruling establishes that corporate responsibility can now extend to senior management for systemic issues, even if they weren't directly involved in the misconduct. Look out Government Agencies this could shake things up a bit now couldnt it. Legal experts suggest that this decision makes it easier to hold executives responsible for a corporation's "unconscionable conduct," especially if they had knowledge of the company's operations or systems of behavior. It highlights that ignorance of unethical practices is no longer a viable defense. The precedent set by this case could lead to heightened scrutiny of corporate executives and directors, who may now be seen as responsible for ensuring that their organizations operate within commercial and ethical norms. This ruling is a wake-up call for corporate leaders, as they might face increased personal liability for harmful business models or practices, even if these are systemic or indirect. The ruling stems from a case against Captain Cook College, where the court found the college's predatory enrollment tactics to be systemically unconscionable, holding both the company and its executives accountable for their roles. This decision could also impact government programs and broader regulatory oversight, indicating a possible future where those overseeing large systems—like Robodebt—could face similar legal scrutiny for systemic failures. Mark Sweeney Bob Buckley Shirley Humphris Peter Gregory Jacqui Grant Veronica Stephan-Miller Byron Stol Karrie Brockovich Cat Walker Katy Gagliardi Uli Cartwright Samantha Connor Sue Grier Amanda Challen👩🦼 Graham Taylor Brendon Grail Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP FSyI SRMCP Helen Bonynge Jane Scott ♿ Trudy Newell Tara Hannon Annette A. Mark Howells https://lnkd.in/gRej55gJ

The High Court's recent ruling significantly shifts the legal landscape for corporate executives, potentially lowering the bar for their prosecution in cases of corporate misconduct. Previously, to hold an individual accountable for corporate fraud, explicit wrongdoing or deliberate financial misappropriation had to be proven. However, the ruling establishes that corporate responsibility can now extend to senior management for systemic issues, even if they weren't directly involved in the misconduct. Look out Government Agencies this could shake things up a bit now couldnt it. Legal experts suggest that this decision makes it easier to hold executives responsible for a corporation's "unconscionable conduct," especially if they had knowledge of the company's operations or systems of behavior. It highlights that ignorance of unethical practices is no longer a viable defense. The precedent set by this case could lead to heightened scrutiny of corporate executives and directors, who may now be seen as responsible for ensuring that their organizations operate within commercial and ethical norms. This ruling is a wake-up call for corporate leaders, as they might face increased personal liability for harmful business models or practices, even if these are systemic or indirect. The ruling stems from a case against Captain Cook College, where the court found the college's predatory enrollment tactics to be systemically unconscionable, holding both the company and its executives accountable for their roles. This decision could also impact government programs and broader regulatory oversight, indicating a possible future where those overseeing large systems—like Robodebt—could face similar legal scrutiny for systemic failures. Mark Sweeney Bob Buckley Shirley Humphris Peter Gregory Jacqui Grant Veronica Stephan-Miller Byron Stol Karrie Brockovich Cat Walker Katy Gagliardi Uli Cartwright Samantha Connor Sue Grier Amanda Challen👩🦼 Graham Taylor Brendon Grail Tony Ridley, MSc CSyP FSyI SRMCP Helen Bonynge Jane Scott ♿ Trudy Newell Tara Hannon Annette A. Mark Howells https://lnkd.in/gRej55gJ

It’s inevitable there’ll be ramifications across the legal profession when this debacle ends Within few minutes of giving evidence yesterday, former Post Office Ltd Managing Director, David Smith, was pointing the blame finger at POL’s internal legal team and external legal advisors In a nutshell, I drew from Mr Smith’s evidence that he: ❎ didn’t apply reasonable processes of due diligence to how POL's internal legal team operated - because he was too busy with more pressing matters ❎ allowed POL's internal legal team to run its own show ❎ was responsible for allowing POL's internal legal team to choose who it investigated, to carry out those investigations, and to prosecute those it investigated (and failed to spot how fundamentally unsafe this was) ❎ congratulated POL's legal team for prosecutions, “Brilliant news, Well done”, so encouraging more prosecutions in a silo department driven by securing prosecutions and praise from an MD for doing so ❎ was nonchalant towards Parliament questioning the stability of the Horizon system, instead deferring to others to draft unchecked replies, using historic cut and pasted template paragraphs (agreeing this was shocking) ❎ was under pressure to rush through the Horizon online system which caused tension between strategic and operational levels in the business ❎ agreed with Judge Sir Wyn Williams the risk of wrongly prosecuting sub postmasters was foreseeable Mr Smith’s evidence smacked of executive arrogance and incompetence and ultimately some sub-postmasters died in consequence. In the causal chain Mr Smith is a link In no way can Mr Smith be defended, but objectively I took away that he appeared to be just a stereotypical business leader who in that moment in time didn’t think about consequences I have no doubt in my mind, there will be Mr Smith’s at many large organisations, scurrying around and implementing retrospectively the type of due diligence processes Mr Smith didn’t Put simply, Mr Smith’s blinkered focus was POL business - not the dispensable and replaceable ‘economic units’ that were the lifeblood of the Post Office’s business – its sub-postmasters Mr Smith’s approach to the real lives of the his people was scant and arrogant, and delegated to lawyers to martial. This was a nuisance facet of the POL business that got in the way of the real business Mr Smith wanted to get on with Those lawyers were going about their business in a silo In that silo they chose to rely on defences that could not be true, instruct colleagues not to leave paper trails that could incriminate, outspend sub-posters to defeat legal challenges, delay and avoid disclosure, ignore information pointing squarely to bugs in the Horizon system and to press on with meritless prosecutions The way Mr Smith, as MD of Post Office Ltd oversaw legal operations (which he was responsible) was poor. He allowed the tail to wag the dog #postofficescandal #lawyers #law https://lnkd.in/evf9Ci4m