How does the SEC's Notice of Covered Action create temporal correlation vulnerability for the Welch consistent-methodology inference in SEC whistleblower billing?

The SEC's Notice of Covered Action is the publicly available announcement that the SEC has entered a judicial or administrative order imposing monetary sanctions of $1 million or more — the eligibility threshold for a whistleblower award under Exchange Act § 21F(b)(1). The SEC publishes each Notice of Covered Action on its website with the case caption, the respondent's name, the filing date of the order, and the total monetary sanctions imposed. This publication creates a publicly accessible temporal anchor for every advisory call the whistleblower attorney made in connection with that specific enforcement action. A billing expert can obtain the Notice of Covered Action publication date from the SEC's public website for each enforcement action connected to a client's Form TCR submission and cross-reference the attorney's billing entries: the initial TCR submission advisory call should appear within days of the client's identification of the violation (which correlates with the underlying conduct dates disclosed in the enforcement action); the investigation cooperation advisory calls should appear within days of the SEC investigation milestone dates (which can be reconstructed from the enforcement action's complaint date, litigation releases, and press release dates — all publicly available on the SEC website); and the Preliminary Determination response advisory call should appear within the 60-day OWB response window following the Notice of Covered Action's publication date. Under Welch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), the consistent-methodology inference authorizes a percentage reduction to billing entries whose temporal distribution is more consistent with reconstruction from the public SEC docket — Notice of Covered Action publication date, SEC press release dates, enforcement action filing dates — than with per-call contemporaneous logging on the dates the advisory calls actually occurred. Role Models America, Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004), extends the Welch percentage reduction to all entries exhibiting the public-record temporal correlation pattern. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989), extends the reduction to fee petition preparation entries. The SEC whistleblower practice's defining structural feature — that every TCR submission advisory call, every investigation cooperation advisory call, and every Preliminary Determination response advisory call is triggered by a publicly dated SEC or OWB event — makes the Notice of Covered Action the most complete public-record temporal correlation framework for any practice area in the EAJA fee petition context.

What is the EAJA fee-shifting pathway for SEC whistleblower advisory calls when the same underlying violations generate a parallel SEC enforcement proceeding against a related respondent?

The EAJA fee-shifting pathway for SEC whistleblower advisory calls operates through the parallel enforcement nexus: the same underlying securities violations that a whistleblower discloses in a Form TCR submission often simultaneously implicate related respondents — the company's senior officers, its compliance department, its affiliated broker-dealers, or its investment advisers — who become subjects of the SEC Division of Enforcement's investigation triggered by the whistleblower's disclosure. When the SEC initiates an administrative proceeding against one of those related respondents under Exchange Act § 15(b) (for broker-dealers and associated persons), Securities Act § 8A (for issuers and underwriters), or Investment Advisers Act § 203(e) (for investment advisers), and the related respondent prevails in that administrative proceeding with the Administrative Law Judge or the Commission finding that the Division of Enforcement's position was not substantially justified under the standard established in Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988), EAJA 5 U.S.C. § 504 fee-shifting applies to the related respondent's pre-enforcement investigation legal fees — and the whistleblower attorney's advisory calls that occurred during the overlapping period between the SEC's investigation and the related respondent's administrative proceeding are includible in the EAJA lodestar as pre-enforcement investigation time under the Pierce v. Underwood framework. The includibility analysis requires demonstrating that the whistleblower attorney's investigation cooperation advisory calls — voluntary interview preparation advisory and voluntary supplemental TCR submission advisory — were directed at the same regulatory risk exposure that the related respondent's administrative proceeding ultimately adjudicated: when the SEC staff contacts the whistleblower for testimony in the same investigation that generates the Wells Notice to the related respondent, the whistleblower attorney's interview preparation advisory call is advisory work incurred during the pre-enforcement investigation period. Under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the lodestar is hours reasonably expended (per-call billing entries for each investigation cooperation advisory call type with contemporaneous dates and durations) multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate ($450–$750/hr for SEC whistleblower counsel with the attorney's credentials and relevant experience). The fee petition must identify, for each investigation cooperation advisory call entry, the specific SEC investigation milestone that triggered the call — the staff contact date, the voluntary interview date, or the supplemental submission request date — and demonstrate that each entry's date falls within the overlapping period between the whistleblower's TCR submission and the related respondent's administrative proceeding.

Blog · June 12, 2026 · 17-minute read

SEC whistleblower attorney time tracking: TCR submission advisory call cycle, SEC investigation cooperation billing gap, and OWB Preliminary Determination fee petition mechanics

SEC whistleblower practice concentrates three categories of externally-scheduled advisory work — TCR submission and anti-retaliation protection, SEC investigation cooperation, and OWB Preliminary Determination response and award collection — where every advisory call arrives on a calendar the attorney does not control: the client's discovery-of-violation calendar, the SEC Division of Enforcement's investigation milestone calendar, and the Office of the Whistleblower's award determination calendar. When parallel SEC enforcement proceedings against a related respondent for the same underlying violations resolve in the respondent's favor, EAJA fee-shifting under 5 U.S.C. § 504 covers the full whistleblower attorney's investigation cooperation lodestar — and the SEC's publicly available Notice of Covered Action, enforcement press releases, and administrative proceeding docket dates make every advisory call temporally correlated to a public record, creating the Welch consistent-methodology inference's most complete public-record temporal framework in any EAJA-eligible practice area.

TL;DR

Failure mode 1 — TCR submission and anti-retaliation advisory call cycle: 3.9 untracked hours = $1,755–$2,925/year (6 whistleblower clients × 2 advisory calls × 35 min × 55% untracked at $450–$750/hr).
Failure mode 2 — SEC investigation cooperation and voluntary supplemental submission advisory call cycle: 4.6 untracked hours = $2,070–$3,450/year (6 clients × 2 advisory calls × 42 min × 55% untracked).
Failure mode 3 — OWB Preliminary Determination response and award collection advisory call cycle: 4.4 untracked hours = $1,980–$3,300/year (4 clients × 3 advisory calls × 40 min × 55% untracked).

Total: 12.9 untracked hours = $5,805–$9,675/year. All three billing failure modes are driven by external scheduling calendars — the whistleblower's discovery-of-violation calendar, the SEC's internal investigation milestone calendar, and the OWB's award determination calendar — not by any deadline the attorney controls. When parallel SEC enforcement proceedings resolve in the related respondent's favor with the Enforcement Division's position found not substantially justified, the EAJA fee petition requires the contemporaneous billing records for all five advisory call types to recover the investigation cooperation lodestar under Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988).

The TCR submission and anti-retaliation advisory call cycle: 3.9 untracked hours = $1,755–$2,925/year

The SEC's Office of the Whistleblower administers the whistleblower award program established by Dodd-Frank § 922 under Exchange Act § 21F, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6. The program awards eligible whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action imposing monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. The Form TCR (Tip, Complaint, or Referral) is the mechanism for submitting a whistleblower tip — available on the SEC's website and submitted through the SEC's online portal or by mail — and the submission date is the date on which the whistleblower's eligibility clock for that enforcement action begins to run. The Form TCR submission advisory call cycle is the initial billing gap driver in whistleblower practice: it arrives on the client's discovery-of-violation calendar, which is the date the client first identifies what appears to be a qualifying securities violation and calls the attorney to assess whether to submit.

The discovery-of-violation calendar is the most unpredictable external calendar in all attorney billing: it has no regulatory schedule, no annual deadline, no notification from any authority. The client identifies the violation — in the course of employment, during due diligence, through review of financial records, while working as a compliance professional at a regulated entity — on whatever date the violative conduct becomes apparent to the client. For a SEC whistleblower attorney with six active whistleblower clients, six TCR submission advisory calls arrive at six different points across the year based on six independent discovery events, none of which the attorney has any advance notice of or control over.

The advisory call's substantive demands are correspondingly immediate. The Form TCR submission advisory call type structure: (a) Form TCR violation identification and submission strategy advisory call (33–38 min) — when the client first identifies the alleged securities violation and calls the attorney, the advisory call must cover: whether the alleged conduct constitutes a violation of the federal securities laws within the OWB's program scope (securities fraud under § 10(b), Exchange Act § 13 periodic disclosure violations, FCPA violations, market manipulation, broker-dealer supervisory failures, investment adviser violations — the program covers the full scope of SEC enforcement jurisdiction); whether the information satisfies the original information standard under Rule 21F-4(c), meaning it is derived from the whistleblower's independent knowledge or analysis and not from any judicial or administrative hearing, governmental report, audit, or investigation, or news media report unless the whistleblower is a source of the original information in the news media; whether the submission is voluntary under Rule 21F-4(a), meaning the whistleblower is submitting before the SEC, another regulatory or law enforcement authority, a registered entity, or the issuer's audit committee has requested the specific information from the whistleblower; the anonymous submission election under Rule 21F-9(a)(2), which allows the whistleblower to file a Form TCR anonymously through a licensed attorney who certifies the whistleblower's identity and contact information to the OWB while maintaining anonymity vis-à-vis the respondent until an award is issued; and the Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. 149 (2018), anti-retaliation protection analysis — the Supreme Court held that Exchange Act § 21F(h)(1)'s anti-retaliation protection extends only to whistleblowers who report to the SEC, not to employees who only report internally, and that the "reasonable belief" standard for anti-retaliation protection requires a reasonable belief that the information relates to a possible violation of the federal securities laws, not certainty of a violation; (b) Retaliation documentation and anti-retaliation protection advisory call (33–38 min) — when the employer takes adverse employment action in response to the whistleblower's submission (termination, demotion, suspension, harassment, or threatening behavior), the advisory call arrives on the date the retaliation manifests, without advance notice, requiring immediate assessment of Exchange Act § 21F(h)(1)(C)'s remedies for retaliation: reinstatement to the same seniority status, double back pay with interest, attorney's fees, and litigation costs; the parallel SOX § 806 18 U.S.C. § 1514A anti-retaliation claim for publicly traded company employees, which requires 180-day OSHA administrative exhaustion before filing a de novo complaint in federal district court under SOX § 806(c), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c); and the statute of limitations comparison — Exchange Act § 21F anti-retaliation claims must be brought within 6 years of the violation or 3 years after the facts material to the right of action are known or reasonably should have been known (but not more than 10 years after the violation), versus SOX § 806's 180-day administrative filing deadline.

Arithmetic: 6 whistleblower clients with active or pending TCR submissions × 2 advisory calls (1 Form TCR violation identification and submission strategy advisory, 1 retaliation documentation and anti-retaliation protection advisory) × 35 min average × 55% untracked = 3.85 untracked hours ≈ 3.9 untracked hours = $1,755–$2,925/year at $450–$750/hr.

The Welch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), temporal clustering inference applies to TCR submission advisory calls through the SEC's public enforcement record mechanism. When the whistleblower's TCR contributes to a successful SEC enforcement action, the resulting Notice of Covered Action — published on the SEC's OWB website with the case caption, respondent name, type of action, filing date, and monetary sanctions — provides a publicly accessible temporal anchor for the TCR submission advisory call. A billing expert can obtain the underlying enforcement action's docket from PACER (for civil actions) or the SEC's administrative proceeding docket (for administrative orders), identify the complaint date or order date from public records, and assess whether the attorney's TCR submission advisory call entries fall within a plausible pre-TCR-submission window before the enforcement action commenced. If every TCR submission advisory call entry for each client falls within a window consistent with reconstruction from the publicly available enforcement action dates — rather than at the specific dates of the client's actual discovery-of-violation calls — the temporal correlation is established from public records alone, without any access to the attorney's client files, the Form TCR submissions (which are confidential under Rule 21F-12), or the OWB's award determination records.

The SEC investigation cooperation and voluntary supplemental submission advisory call cycle: 4.6 untracked hours = $2,070–$3,450/year

After a Form TCR submission, the SEC Division of Enforcement independently assesses the information and, if it initiates or continues a formal investigation, may contact the whistleblower for additional information or testimony. Exchange Act § 21F(e)(1) provides that the SEC shall not be required to take any action based on the filing of a Form TCR — the SEC's investigation decision is entirely within its discretion — and the timing of any contact with the whistleblower is driven entirely by the SEC's internal investigation milestone calendar. The SEC investigation cooperation advisory call cycle arrives months or years after the initial TCR submission, on dates that the SEC investigation team determines internally: when staff believes it has enough evidence to warrant contacting the whistleblower for corroboration, when staff identifies a gap in the evidentiary record that the whistleblower's testimony could fill, or when staff is preparing for a formal order of investigation that requires additional fact development.

The investigation cooperation advisory call cycle's defining structural feature is its calendar independence: the attorney has no advance knowledge of when SEC staff will contact the whistleblower, no way to schedule the advisory calls in the billing calendar, and no control over the investigation milestone dates that trigger each call. The six-month to multi-year interval between TCR submission and first SEC staff contact — driven entirely by the SEC's investigation triage, resource allocation, and enforcement priority decisions — means the investigation cooperation advisory calls arrive at irregular intervals across years, not in any predictable annual cluster that the attorney can plan for in the billing calendar.

SEC investigation cooperation advisory call types and their timing structure: (a) Voluntary interview preparation advisory call (40–45 min) — when SEC Division of Enforcement staff contacts the whistleblower attorney to arrange an informal meeting with the client (as a voluntary witness, not under a formal order of investigation) or issues a formal subpoena for testimony under Exchange Act § 21F(e)(1)'s authorization for the SEC to use its investigative powers to obtain information from whistleblowers, the advisory call arrives on the date of SEC staff contact, which is driven entirely by the SEC investigation milestone calendar; the advisory call covers: Fifth Amendment privilege analysis under Rule 21F-4(b)(1)(i) — invoking the Fifth Amendment in the SEC investigation disqualifies the whistleblower from receiving an award unless the privilege assertion is authorized by a court order or is coerced by the SEC staff through an unconstitutional improper grant of immunity; proffer agreement and cooperation framework assessment before the interview date; whether to characterize the cooperation as voluntary under Rule 21F-6(b)'s award percentage enhancement factors (the whistleblower's degree of assistance and participation in internal compliance systems are enhancement factors that the attorney must position through the cooperation framework adopted); and Regulation AC cooperation advisory for any testimony relating to research reports or analyst communications; (b) Voluntary supplemental TCR submission advisory call (38–42 min) — when new information becomes available during the SEC investigation period — the client identifies additional evidence of the violation not included in the original TCR, the SEC investigation reveals related violations that were not part of the initial disclosure, or SEC staff contacts the attorney to indicate that the initial submission lacked specificity or corroboration — the supplemental submission advisory call arrives on the date the opportunity to enhance the submission becomes apparent, driven entirely by the SEC investigation's development, not by any deadline the attorney scheduled; the advisory call covers: Rule 21F-4(c) original information analysis for the new information (does the supplemental information qualify as original information derived from the whistleblower's own knowledge and analysis, or does it rely on documents or facts that the SEC has already obtained through its investigation?); Rule 21F-6(a) award percentage enhancement factor optimization (the significance of the information provided by the whistleblower is the highest-weighted enhancement factor, and the voluntary supplemental submission's content must maximize that significance by providing information that materially advances the investigation); and Rule 21F-6(b) degree of assistance enhancement (voluntary, proactive submission of supplemental information that saves the SEC investigation significant resources can qualify for enhancement under this factor).

Arithmetic: 6 whistleblower clients with SEC investigations in progress × 2 advisory calls (1 voluntary interview preparation advisory, 1 voluntary supplemental TCR submission advisory) × 42 min average × 55% untracked = 4.62 untracked hours ≈ 4.6 untracked hours = $2,070–$3,450/year at $450–$750/hr.

The temporal clustering vulnerability in the SEC investigation cooperation advisory call cycle operates through the SEC's public investigation record. SEC enforcement actions generate publicly available litigation releases (press releases announcing charges, settlements, and orders) and administrative proceeding orders that disclose the investigation's timeline in retrospect: the complaint date in civil actions or the order date in administrative proceedings can be cross-referenced with the whistleblower attorney's billing entries to assess whether the investigation cooperation advisory calls fall within a plausible investigation cooperation window consistent with the public enforcement record's timeline. For whistleblower practice specifically, the Notice of Covered Action's publication date and the SEC enforcement action's resolution date provide temporal anchors that a billing expert can use to assess whether the investigation cooperation advisory calls are temporally distributed consistently with contemporaneous logging on the dates SEC staff actually contacted the attorney — or whether the entries are distributed consistently with reconstruction from the public enforcement timeline.

The OWB Preliminary Determination response and award collection advisory call cycle: 4.4 untracked hours = $1,980–$3,300/year

The Office of the Whistleblower award determination process begins after the SEC enforcement action that the whistleblower's information contributed to has concluded and the monetary sanctions have been collected. The OWB reviews each whistleblower application for an award (submitted on Form WB-APP within 90 days of the Notice of Covered Action under Rule 21F-10(a)), assesses the whistleblower's eligibility and the applicable enhancement and reduction factors under Rules 21F-6(a) and 21F-6(b), and issues a Preliminary Determination recommending a specific award percentage (10%–30% of monetary sanctions collected) or denying the application. The Preliminary Determination arrives on the OWB's award determination calendar — after months to years of OWB review — on whatever date the OWB completes its assessment, without any advance notice to the whistleblower attorney.

The OWB Preliminary Determination response advisory call cycle concentrates three advisory calls across the award determination and collection sequence: the Preliminary Determination response advisory call (which must begin within days of receiving the Preliminary Determination because the 60-day Rule 21F-10(e) response window runs from the mailing date), the Final Determination judicial review advisory call (which must begin immediately upon receiving the Final Order because the 30-day petition deadline to the U.S. Court of Appeals runs from the Final Order date), and the related action award claim advisory call (which must occur within 90 days of the Notice of Covered Action for any related DOJ, CFTC, state, or foreign authority action that collects sanctions on the same underlying conduct).

OWB Preliminary Determination response and award collection advisory call types and their timing structure: (a) Preliminary Determination analysis and 60-day response strategy advisory call (38–42 min) — when the OWB mails the Preliminary Determination, the attorney calls within the first week to assess: whether to contest the recommended award percentage by submitting a written response under Rule 21F-10(e) arguing for higher enhancement under Rule 21F-6(a) (significance of information, prompt reporting, cooperation) or lower reduction under Rule 21F-6(b) (culpability, delay in reporting, interference with internal compliance); whether to contest a denial on the grounds that the Form TCR submission satisfies the original information standard under Rule 21F-4(c); whether to request a meeting with OWB staff under Rule 21F-10(e)(ii) to present oral argument; and whether to submit additional documentation within the 60-day window that was not included in the original Form WB-APP — arriving on the OWB's award determination calendar, the single most deadline-compressed external calendar event in SEC whistleblower practice; (b) Final Determination judicial review strategy advisory call (38–42 min) — when the OWB issues the Final Order (either confirming the Preliminary Determination or modifying it in response to the written response), the advisory call arrives on the Final Order date and must cover: the 30-day deadline to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for review of the Final Order under Exchange Act § 21F(f), which provides that any person aggrieved by a Final Order may obtain review in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the petitioner resides or has its principal place of business, or in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the standard of review — courts assess OWB award percentage determinations under the arbitrary and capricious standard of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), but review legal determinations (such as eligibility decisions under Rule 21F-4(c)) de novo; and the merits of a petition given the deference the courts accord the OWB's expertise in administering the whistleblower award program; (c) Related action award claim advisory call (38–42 min) — when a related action by DOJ, CFTC, a state securities regulator, or a foreign financial regulatory authority collects monetary sanctions of $1 million or more based on the same underlying conduct covered by the SEC enforcement action, Rule 21F-3(b) authorizes a related action award of 10%–30% of the related authority's collected sanctions; the advisory call covers: identifying which related authority actions qualify under Rule 21F-3(b)'s definition of a related action (federal court action or administrative action brought by one of the specified authorities based on the same original information provided by the whistleblower to the SEC); the Form WB-APP filing deadline within 90 days of the Notice of Covered Action under Rule 21F-10(a)(3) for each qualifying related action (which may be a different date from the SEC action's Notice of Covered Action); and the separate award calculation for each related action under Rule 21F-3(b)(1) — arriving when the related authority's enforcement action concludes with sanctions collection, driven entirely by when the DOJ closes its criminal case or the CFTC issues its final order.

Arithmetic: 4 whistleblower clients at the award determination stage × 3 advisory calls (1 Preliminary Determination analysis and 60-day response strategy advisory, 1 Final Determination judicial review strategy advisory, 1 related action award claim advisory) × 40 min average × 55% untracked = 4.4 untracked hours = $1,980–$3,300/year at $450–$750/hr.

The OWB award determination advisory call cycle's temporal correlation to public records is the most complete in all three SEC whistleblower billing failure modes. The OWB publishes every Notice of Covered Action on the SEC website with the case caption, respondent name, filing date, and sanctions amount. The OWB publishes summaries of Final Orders on its website, disclosing the award percentage (or denial), the case type, and whether a related action award was included — though the whistleblower's identity remains confidential. The SEC's administrative proceeding and civil action dockets on PACER and the SEC website disclose every enforcement milestone date. For a billing expert cross-referencing a SEC whistleblower attorney's billing entries against the public OWB and SEC enforcement record, the temporal correlation assessment covers: whether the Preliminary Determination response advisory call appears within 10 business days of the OWB's Preliminary Determination mailing date (derivable from the Final Order's timeline); whether the Final Determination advisory call appears within 10 business days of the Final Order date (directly derivable from the OWB's public order summaries); and whether the related action award advisory call appears within 30 days of the related authority's publicly announced enforcement action date. All three advisory call dates are anchored to publicly accessible dates — making the OWB award determination advisory call cycle the SEC whistleblower billing pattern with the most complete Welch temporal correlation framework from public records alone.

Three diagnostics for SEC whistleblower billing gap identification

Diagnostic 1 — TCR submission advisory call capture rate by enforcement action docket date. For each active or closed SEC whistleblower matter, identify the enforcement action (if any) that the TCR contributed to and obtain its public docket dates: the SEC complaint date (civil action) or administrative order date (administrative proceeding), available on PACER and the SEC's EDGAR or litigation release database. For each enforcement action, assess whether two billing entries of 30+ minutes each appear within a plausible TCR-submission-to-enforcement-action window: the Form TCR violation identification and submission strategy advisory (which should predate the enforcement action filing by months to years) and the retaliation documentation and anti-retaliation protection advisory (which should appear on or after the date employer retaliation was first documented). If any active matter has no TCR submission advisory call entries in the billing record despite the enforcement action having been filed, the discovery-of-violation calendar drove a complete TCR advisory billing gap — the client's identification of the violation generated advisory work that was never captured.

Diagnostic 2 — Investigation cooperation advisory call capture rate by SEC staff contact dates. For each active SEC whistleblower matter where the SEC has contacted the whistleblower for cooperation, review the client file for SEC staff contact dates: the date staff first contacted the attorney requesting a meeting with the client, the date of any formal subpoena for testimony, and the date of any staff communication indicating the investigation's direction. For each SEC staff contact date, check whether a billing entry of 35+ minutes appears within 48–72 hours: the voluntary interview preparation advisory. If any SEC staff contact date has no proximate billing entry, the SEC's investigation milestone calendar drove a systematic investigation cooperation advisory billing gap — the call that prepared the client for the SEC interview ran at zero capture. For a SEC whistleblower attorney with six active matters in different investigation stages across the SEC's multi-year enforcement calendar, the investigation cooperation advisory billing gap may span multiple years of the billing record with sporadic missing entries at each SEC investigation milestone date.

Diagnostic 3 — OWB award determination advisory call capture rate by Notice of Covered Action date. For each whistleblower matter where the OWB has issued a Notice of Covered Action (check the OWB's public Notice of Covered Action list on the SEC website), identify the Notice publication date and the Form WB-APP filing deadline (90 days from publication under Rule 21F-10(a)(3)). Check whether billing entries for three advisory calls appear within the award determination sequence: a Preliminary Determination response advisory call within the 60-day response window under Rule 21F-10(e), a Final Determination judicial review advisory call within 30 days of the Final Order date, and a related action award advisory call within 90 days of any related authority enforcement action date. If the Preliminary Determination response advisory call is missing — or if it appears after the 60-day response window has closed — the OWB's award determination calendar drove a billing gap at the highest-stakes advisory event in the entire whistleblower engagement. The absence of a Preliminary Determination response advisory call entry for a matter where the OWB issued a Preliminary Determination is the most consequential single billing gap in SEC whistleblower practice: not only is the billable time lost, but if the Preliminary Determination recommended a below-range percentage and no written response was submitted in the 60-day window, the opportunity to contest the OWB's award percentage determination is permanently waived.

How ClaimHour fits SEC whistleblower practice

If your SEC whistleblower practice generates TCR submission advisory calls on any Thursday when a compliance officer at a regulated entity calls to report what they found in an internal audit — NLSS advisory calls when the OWB issues a Notice of Covered Action for an enforcement action your client's TCR contributed to — interview preparation advisory calls when the Division of Enforcement contacts you to schedule a voluntary meeting for next week — supplemental submission advisory calls when SEC staff indicates the initial TCR lacked the specificity to qualify as original information under Rule 21F-4(c) — Preliminary Determination response advisory calls when the 60-day response window starts running from the OWB's mailing date — and none of those calls consistently appears in your billing system because they all arrived on the SEC's and OWB's schedules rather than yours — ClaimHour was built for that gap. The passive iOS call metadata capture logs every call (duration, timestamp, direction, not content). The 2-minute evening digest surfaces each unmatched call for matter attribution. No audio stored. Privilege is preserved under ABA Formal Opinion 512. At $450–$750/hr, 12.9 additional tracked hours per year = $5,805–$9,675 of previously unlogged time — and the contemporaneous per-call billing records, each appearing within 24–48 hours of the OWB or SEC event that triggered the call, that survive the Notice of Covered Action temporal correlation audit, the SEC staff contact date proximity test, and the Preliminary Determination 60-day response window cross-reference that together make up the Welch consistent-methodology inference's most complete public-record temporal framework in SEC whistleblower attorney billing practice.

Get early access