Each year, the Young Lawyers Division (YLD) of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA) hosts one of the largest mock trial competitions in the nation. The PBA/YLD Mock Trial Competition gives more than 300 high school student teams from across the state the opportunity to act as lawyers and witnesses in simulated civil and criminal trials before actual judges and panels of juries. The competition takes place over several months and is led by volunteer attorneys who assist students as team advisors, scorekeepers, regional coordinators and judges.
Pietragallo Partner Peter S. Wolff and Associates Fino Caliguire and Rebecca Johnson volunteered as judges during the 2020 District Play-Offs portion of the competition. “The level of talent demonstrated by the teams was amazing,” said, Peter S. Wolff. Mr. Caliguire commented, “Rebecca and I both were expecting great performances knowing that this was the final round of the competition. Even so, we were both blown away by the preparedness and professionalism of the high school competitors. Not only were their speeches and direct examinations smooth and well-rehearsed, their ability to adapt on cross examination and improvise in portions of their closings was incredible for students their age. I would not be surprised to run into some familiar faces from the competition in a courtroom 7 or 8 years down the road.”
The Firm extends its congratulation to Eden Christian Academy who secured the most points and who will proceed onto the next level of the competition, the regional playoffs.
For more information about the PBA/YLD Mock Trial Competition, we invite you to visit the PBA website.
For more information about any of our attorneys, we invite you to visit Our Team page. Read More
As published in The New York Law Journal
An amendment to New York’s data breach notification law, the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (the SHIELD Act), will take effect on March 21, 2020. The amendment to the SHIELD Act creates stricter data security over confidential personal information and breach notification requirements to protect New Yorkers following a breach.
The amendments to the SHIELD Act broaden the law’s reach applying to any company that collects personal information of New York residents, even if the company does not conduct business within the state of New York. The information protected under the SHIELD Act includes: social Security numbers, drivers’ licenses numbers, credit or debit card numbers, financial account numbers with or without security codes, biometric information, email addresses, email passwords, and email security questions and answers.
The amendments also broaden the definition of “breach,” which is newly defined as requiring only unauthorized access to confidential information to constitute a breach, even if the accessor fails to take or use the information obtained. Once a breach occurs, companies must notify consumers “immediately following discovery.” Notice to consumers must include:
… contact information for the person or business making the notification, the telephone numbers and websites of the relevant state and federal agencies that provide information regarding security breach response and identity theft prevention and protection information, and a description of the categories of information that were, or are reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired by a person without valid authorization, including specification of which of the elements of personal information and private information were, or are reasonably believed to have been, so accessed or acquired.
There are two exceptions to the SHIELD Act’s notification requirement: (1) when the breach was inadvertent by someone who had authority to access the information and reasonably determines that the exposure will not likely result in misuse or harm; or (2) if notice of the breach is made to affected persons through another breach notification law, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Read More
Corruption is in the news all-too-often today. Join Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Gibson along with Pietragallo partners Lourdes Sánchez Ridge and John Schwab to discuss how prosecutors make charging decisions in corruption cases and the minefields that defense attorneys must navigate to prepare clients under investigation.
This CLE will cover an overview of federal corruption offenses and related crimes with a focus on some recent cases and developments. Attendees will hear perspectives from both sides of the courtroom.
For more information about this exciting event, which will be taking place on March 19th in our Philadelphia office, please contact a member of our Events team via email: news@pietragallo.com
This event has been postponed. Please email NEWS@pietragallo.com to subscribe to updates. Read More
On Jan. 22, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion ordering the permanent sealing of a grand jury report relating to allegations of sexual abuse and a potential coverup. In the opinion, In re Grand Jury Investigation No. 18, the Supreme Court concluded that because the report did not meet the Investigating Grand Jury Act’s statutory definitions of an “investigating grand jury report,” it could not be released to the public.
This decision comes on the heels of a November 2019 Grand Jury Task Force report that recommended abolishing investigating grand jury reports entirely.[1] From our point of view, it appears that investigating reports are on their way out.
The Investigating Grand Jury Act authorizes only two options for proceeding against an individual: a presentment recommending criminal charges or an investigating grand jury report.[2] Where a presentment is not an option — a common outcome for any number of reasons, including, importantly, that there is simply not enough evidence to proceed on criminal charges — an investigating grand jury report may be considered.
As the Supreme Court recognized here, however, the use of investigative grand jury reports must be greatly limited in their reach, because of their impact on the constitutional rights of those named within them.
Generally, the Investigating Grand Jury Act authorizes the judge supervising grand jury proceedings to make public an investigating grand jury report.[3] But the act’s two-prong definition of an “investigating grand jury report” is narrow. Specifically, only reports that regard “conditions relating to organized crime or public corruption, or both; or that propose recommendations for legislative, executive, or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings” meet the act’s definition.
Reports that fail to meet those strict definitions cannot be released.[4] The petitioner here argued that the report in question did not meet the act’s limited definitions. Read More
Can I Just Be John Doe? A review of remaining anonymous in False Claims Act cases
There is strong appeal in the concept of remaining anonymous for many whistleblowers but unless you can prove both a fear of severe harm, and that the fear of severe harm is reasonable, two recent Circuit Court decisions illustrate how unlikely it is that you can remain in the shadows and demonstrates the risks inherent to that pursuit.
Janssen Therapeutics
In the first of the two cases, a Jane and John Doe filed a qui tam complaint under their actual names against Janssen Therapeutics, Janssen Products, LP, and Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (“Janssen Therapeutic Defendants”)[i]. In the complaint, Jane and John Doe alleged that the Janssen Therapeutic Defendants submitted false claims by promoting off-label use of two HIV medications.
After two years of investigating, Jane and John Doe (“the relators”) were informed that they were not the first-to-file an FCA lawsuit against the Janssen Therapeutic Defendants relating to the allegations in their complaint. As a result, the relators amended their complaint under seal filing the exact same complaint only replacing their actual names with the pseudonyms Jane and John Doe.
After the relators filed their amended complaint, the government filed a ‘Notice of Election to Decline Intervention’ and requested that the amended complaint and the Notice of Election to Decline be unsealed but that all other contents of the docket remain under seal. The District Court granted the motion and the original complaint remained under seal. The relators, subsequently, voluntarily dismissed their complaint.
The Janssen Therapeutic Defendants moved to unseal the original complaint and, applying the test for proceeding with a litigation anonymously set out in Doe v. Megless[ii], the District Court ordered the original complaint to be unsealed after 45 days.
Under the Megless test, a litigant must show “both a fear of severe harm, and that the fear of severe harm is reasonable.” Read More
On April 23, 2020, Pietragallo partners Lourdes Sánchez Ridge and Michael A. Morse will present “How the False Claims Act Impacts Municipalities.”
The False Claims Act (FCA) has been a tool used against municipalities and a tool used by municipalities. During this presentation, which is a part of the International Municipal Lawyers’ Association (IMLA) annual seminar, attendees will learn how to use the FCA to your advantage and avoid being the target of an FCA prosecution.
Ms. Sánchez Ridge is the Chair of the firm’s Municipal & Government Law Practice Group and Mr. Morse is one of the leading attorneys in the United States in the practice area of False Claims.
For more information about our attorneys, we invite you to visit their biographies or contact them directly. For more information about the IMLA program, and to register for this event, please visit the IMLA website here.
Read More
On Sunday, March 29, 2020, Pietragallo partner Michael A. Morse will present at the Health Care Compliance Association’s 24th Annual Compliance Institute in Nashville, Tennessee, on “The False Claims Act Update.” During this presentation, attendees will:
Understand the fundamentals of liability, damages and procedure under the FCA
Review critical recent court interpretations of the Supreme Court’s Escobar decision
Discuss recent decisions on determining “falsity” in medical necessity cases
Mr. Morse is co-presenting with John Boese, of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP and Gabriel Imperato, Managing Partner of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel.
For more information about Michael A. Morse, please visit his biography. For more information about the Annual Compliance Institute, please visit their website here.
PLEASE NOTE THIS EVENT IS BEING TURNED INTO A VIRTUAL CONFERENCE. THE FULL DETAILS WILL BE RELEASED BY THE HCCA ON MARCH 18TH. PLEASE EMAIL NEWS@PIETRAGALLO.COM TO SUBSCRIBE TO UPDATES. Read More
On Nov. 20, in Commonwealth v. Davis, — A 3d. —, 56 MAP 2018, (Pa. 2019), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that compelling an individual to provide their password to an encrypted electronic device violates the Fifth Amendment. In this case of first impression, the government had moved to compel a defendant accused of distributing child pornography to provide the password to his encrypted computer, a device which itself had been lawfully seized. While the government’s request was through a pretrial motion, Davis’ holding is not limited to that context and will apply equally to grand jury practice.
In Davis, the court found that the act of producing the password was “testimonial” in nature and thus the government’s request violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court reviewed decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the Fifth Amendment and distilled the caselaw to a few key points:
First, the Supreme Court has made, and continues to make, a distinction between physical production and testimonial production. As made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court, where the government compels a physical act, such production is not testimonial, and the privilege is not recognized. Second, an act of production, however, may be testimonial when the act expresses some explicit or implicit statement of fact that certain materials exist, are in the defendant’s custody or control, or are authentic. The crux of whether an act of production is testimonial is whether the government compels the defendant to use the “contents of his own mind” in explicitly or implicitly communicating a fact. Third, and broadly speaking, the high court has recognized that the vast majority of compelled oral statements of facts will be considered testimonial, as they convey information or assert facts.
Applying those principles, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Davis’ provision of his password would be “testimonial” in nature:
“Distilled to its essence, the revealing of a computer password is a verbal communication, not merely a physical act that would be nontestimonial in nature. Read More
Individual liability continues to be at the forefront of criminal investigations and the litigation that often follows. Throughout the past five years, the U.S. Department of Justice’s edicts on individual culpability have varied in tone and rigidity, but the underlying focus on individuals has remained constant.
On Sept. 9, 2015, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates authored a memorandum on corporate prosecution, now referred to as the “Yates memo.[1] The Yates memo, which memorialized the DOJ’s long-standing policy that individual accountability is one of the most effective ways to deter corporate crime, recommended an all-or-nothing approach that sent shock waves through the legal community, who feared that cooperation credit had been rendered an unattainable fiction.
On Sept. 25, 2018, the DOJ updated the U.S. Attorney’s Manual to include a modified version of the Yates Memo, requiring corporations to “identify all individuals substantially involved in or responsible for the misconduct at issue” to obtain consideration for cooperation credit.[2]
Subsequently, DOJ leadership has reiterated its focus on individual liability. As recently as last month, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Matthew Miner delivered remarks at the Sixth Annual Government Enforcement Institute in which he highlighted that the DOJ remains “focused on investigating and prosecuting the individuals responsible for fraudulent behavior and corporate crime.”[3]
To underscore his point, he referenced the DOJ fraud section’s recent prosecution numbers, noting that in 2018, that section alone prosecuted 422 individuals, representing an almost 37% increase from the prior year.[4] Indeed, this focus on individual prosecutions was emphasized emphatically several weeks later, on Sept. 27, when the DOJ filed charges against 53 individuals in a health care fraud law enforcement action and 35 individuals in a fraudulent genetic testing ring in one of the largest health care fraud schemes ever charged.[5]
However, the U.S. government is not the only one who recognizes the impact of individually named defendants. Read More
Pietragallo partner Michael A. Morse will be presenting at the Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s (“PBI”) Health Law Institute on March 11-12, 2020. Mr. Morse’s session topic is, “Preparing for the Fight of Your Life: Anatomy of a Health Care Fraud Prosecution.” The PBI notes that the Health Law Institute is, “The event of the year for every health law professional.”
The Health Law Institute 2020 brings health law professionals comprehensive update, insights and practical advice – and the opportunity to tailor your own personalized agenda through numerous breakout session options in addition to the plenary sessions.
For more information about the Health Law Institute 2020, please visit the PBI’s website.
For more information about Michael A. Morse, please visit his biography or contact him directly. Read More
February 6, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, PA (February 6, 2023) – Two whistleblowers from Florence, South Carolina, Scarlett Lutz and Kayla Webster, have resolved their 10-year qui tam lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America, Inc. Read More
