Fee petition mechanics · Updated June 2026

Qui tam FCA attorney fee petition mechanics: sealed investigation billing gap, DOJ coordination and investigation conference advisory, and post-intervention monitoring and relator-share negotiation

Q: How does the DOJ investigation coordination call cycle generate billing gaps on the government's investigation calendar?

After the qui tam complaint is filed, DOJ investigators contact the relator's attorney to discuss the investigation, request additional documentary evidence from the relator, schedule the relator's interview, and update the attorney on the government's intervention decision timeline. These coordination calls arrive on the DOJ's investigation calendar — a calendar the relator's attorney cannot observe, predict, or control. DOJ investigators contact the attorney when the investigation has advanced to a point where the relator's additional information is needed, when a grand jury subpoena is being prepared and DOJ needs the relator's assistance in identifying the most probative documents, and when the intervention decision is approaching and DOJ wants a final meeting with the relator before making its decision under § 3730(b)(4). The attorney's preparation for each DOJ coordination call — reviewing the relator's prior submissions, preparing the relator for the investigator interview, and assembling additional documentary evidence — generates advisory calls with the relator that arrive on the DOJ's investigation timeline. At 55% untracked: 3 active DOJ investigation matters × 6 coordination calls × 50 min × 55% = 495 min / 60 ≈ 8.25 hours = $2,888/year at $350/hr.

Q: How does the § 3730(d) attorney fee petition work in FCA qui tam practice?

The False Claims Act § 3730(d)(1) provides that when the government proceeds with the action and the relator prevails, the relator shall receive an award of reasonable attorney's fees, expenses, and costs from the defendant — making FCA a fee-shifting statute under which the defendant, not the relator, pays the attorney's fees. The fee petition under § 3730(d) applies the Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), lodestar framework: the attorney must submit contemporaneous billing records supporting each hour claimed. The § 3730(d) fee petition is particularly vulnerable to reconstruction challenges because the billing gap is concentrated in the sealed period — when no court docket, no opposing counsel correspondence, and no formal billing cycle generated external anchors for the attorney's time entries. Courts applying Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990), allow fees-on-fees for the attorney time spent preparing the § 3730(d) fee petition itself — but Jean's consistent-methodology inference means that courts which find reconstruction signatures (round-number entries, vague descriptors, end-of-sealed-period clustering) in the merits billing record apply the same reduction to the fee petition preparation hours. The defendant's fee-petition counsel reviews the sealed-period billing entries for gaps and reconstructed clusters as the primary litigation strategy in contesting the § 3730(d) fee petition.

Qui tam relator's attorneys representing whistleblower relators in sealed False Claims Act investigations under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2) — whose time records must support a § 3730(d) attorney fee petition under the Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar framework, survive the consistent-methodology inference from Welch v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), and withstand the fees-on-fees scrutiny of Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990), when the defendant challenges the sealed-period billing record — face a billing gap no other fee-shifting practice creates: three structural billing failure modes generated by advisory calls arriving on the government's investigation and settlement calendars, with the sealed period's records problem architecturally distinct from ERISA, employment, or civil rights practice because the § 3730(b)(2) seal removes every external system that would otherwise generate contemporaneous billing anchors: sealed investigation relator contact and disclosure supplement advisory calls on the relator's information development schedule (5 sealed-phase matters × 8 relator-contact calls × 48 min × 55% untracked ≈ 17.6 hrs = $6,160/year at $350/hr), DOJ investigation coordination and investigator conference advisory calls on the government's investigation calendar (3 DOJ coordination matters × 6 calls × 50 min × 55% untracked ≈ 8.25 hrs = $2,888/year), and post-intervention monitoring and relator-share negotiation advisory calls on DOJ's settlement timeline (4 post-intervention matters × 5 calls × 50 min × 55% untracked ≈ 9.2 hrs = $3,208/year). For a solo qui tam relator's practice, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is 35.1 hrs = $12,256.

TL;DR

ClaimHour captures every sealed-investigation relator contact advisory call, every DOJ coordination and investigator conference advisory call that arrives on the government's investigation calendar, and every post-intervention monitoring and relator-share negotiation call that arrives on DOJ's settlement timeline — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.

Sealed investigation relator contact advisory: the billing gap no other fee-shifting practice creates

The False Claims Act § 3730(b)(2) seal creates a billing gap that is architecturally distinct from every other fee-shifting practice area: when the qui tam complaint is filed, the court orders the complaint sealed for at least 60 days, with extensions routinely granted as DOJ investigates. During the sealed period — which runs 12 months or more in complex healthcare or defense contractor fraud matters involving Medicare Part B billing fraud, pharmaceutical off-label marketing kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b), defense contractor cost mischarging under 10 U.S.C. § 3901, or customs duty evasion — the relator's attorney is in a fundamentally different billing situation than any other fee-shifting practitioner. No court docket generates billing anchors; no opposing counsel correspondence creates billing entry prompts; no formal invoice cycle runs because detailed invoices referencing the sealed case could constitute unauthorized disclosure under § 3730(b)(2). The attorney consults with the relator about newly discovered evidence of additional fraud, prepares supplemental disclosure materials for DOJ under the FCA's disclosure requirement, and coordinates with the relator's compliance department contacts about the scope of the fraud — all generating advisory calls that the attorney cannot log in a standard matter-based billing system with sufficient specificity to survive a fee petition challenge without compromising the sealed proceedings.

Two sealed investigation relator contact advisory call types that arrive on the relator's information development schedule: (1) sealed period relator consultation and disclosure supplement advisory call — arrives when the relator discovers new instances of fraud or obtains additional documentary evidence during the sealed investigation period (which can run 1–3 years before DOJ makes its intervention decision), requiring the attorney to analyze whether the new evidence strengthens the § 3730(e)(4) original source analysis, whether the supplemental disclosure materials should be filed with the DOJ before the existing § 3730(b)(3) investigation period expires, and whether the new evidence of fraud broadens the scope of the complaint in a manner that requires amending the complaint before the seal is lifted (46–50 min); (2) relator's employment protection and retaliation advisory call — arrives when the relator experiences adverse employment actions that the relator believes are connected to the sealed investigation, requiring analysis of the § 3730(h) anti-retaliation provision (which protects employees who engage in protected activity in furtherance of an FCA action, including gathering evidence, reporting suspected fraud to supervisors, and consulting with an attorney), whether the retaliation claim should be filed immediately or held until after the DOJ intervention decision, and the evidentiary burden the relator must meet to establish that the adverse action was motivated by the protected FCA activity (46–50 min). At 55% untracked: 5 sealed-phase matters × 8 relator-contact calls × 48 min × 55% = 1056 min / 60 ≈ 17.6 hours = $6,160/year at $350/hr.

DOJ investigation coordination and investigator conference advisory: calls on the government's investigation calendar

After the qui tam complaint is filed and the sealed investigation begins, DOJ and the relevant agency's Office of Inspector General (OIG) conduct their own investigation of the relator's allegations — issuing civil investigative demands under § 3733, convening grand juries, and scheduling meetings with the relator through the relator's attorney. These investigation coordination calls arrive on the government's investigation calendar — a calendar the relator's attorney cannot observe, predict, or control. DOJ investigators contact the relator's attorney when the investigation has advanced to a point where the relator's additional information is needed to fill gaps in the government's own investigation; when a CID or grand jury subpoena is being prepared and DOJ needs the relator's assistance in identifying the most probative documents; and when the § 3730(b)(4) intervention decision is approaching and DOJ wants a final meeting with the relator before deciding whether to intervene, decline to intervene (but allow the relator to proceed), or move to dismiss the action under § 3730(c)(2)(A). The attorney's advisory calls with the relator in preparation for each DOJ coordination meeting — assembling additional documentary evidence, preparing the relator for the investigator interview, and reviewing the relator's understanding of the fraud scheme's scope — arrive on DOJ's investigation timeline and are systematically underlogged because they occur in response to government contact that the attorney did not schedule and cannot predict.

Two DOJ investigation coordination advisory call types that arrive on the government's investigation calendar: (1) DOJ investigator interview preparation and CID response advisory call — arrives when DOJ or OIG investigators contact the relator's attorney to schedule a meeting with the relator or when DOJ issues a civil investigative demand under § 3733(a)(1) requiring documentary evidence or written interrogatory responses within a specified period, requiring the attorney to prepare the relator for the investigator interview (including the scope of the relator's personal knowledge of the fraud, the documents most probative of the defendant's fraudulent billing or false claims, and the relator's employment access to the relevant financial systems), analyze the CID's scope and the relator's production obligations, and assess whether the CID's information requests are consistent with the relator's sealed complaint or suggest the government is investigating additional fraud schemes beyond the complaint's allegations (48–52 min); (2) intervention decision and unsealing strategy advisory call — arrives when DOJ is approaching its decision on whether to intervene in the action under § 3730(b)(4), requiring analysis of the government's signal of intervention interest (DOJ contacts the relator's attorney before making a final decision, to discuss any remaining gaps in the evidence and the relator's expectations for the prosecution), the unsealing procedure and the timing of the public disclosure of the complaint, and the relator's ongoing employment status after the case becomes public (whether the relator can continue working for the defendant during a declined-intervention prosecution, the retaliation risk, and the § 3730(h) protection analysis) (48–52 min). At 55% untracked: 3 active DOJ coordination matters × 6 calls × 50 min × 55% = 495 min / 60 ≈ 8.25 hours = $2,888/year at $350/hr.

Post-intervention monitoring and relator-share negotiation advisory: calls on DOJ's settlement timeline

After DOJ intervenes in the qui tam action, the relator's attorney enters a monitoring and negotiation phase that generates advisory calls on DOJ's settlement timeline: the attorney monitors the government's prosecution of the case and assesses whether the government's settlement negotiations adequately protect the relator's § 3730(d) fee interest, and the attorney negotiates the relator's share of the settlement proceeds — a share that is determined by DOJ in negotiation with the relator based on the relator's contribution to the discovery and prosecution of the fraud, the court's fairness assessment in the event of a settlement, and the defendant's resources. The relator-share negotiation calls arrive on DOJ's settlement negotiation timeline — a timeline DOJ controls in coordination with the defendant. DOJ contacts the relator's attorney when settlement negotiations reach the stage where the relator's share must be determined. The § 3730(d)(1) relator's share range (15–30% of the proceeds when DOJ intervenes) depends on the significance of the relator's contribution to the prosecution: whether the relator was the original source of all information forming the basis of the action under § 3730(e)(4)(B), whether the relator substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action, and whether the defendant was convicted or entered a guilty plea. Each of these contribution-assessment calls arrives when DOJ initiates the negotiation on its timeline, not when the relator's attorney has scheduled a billing event.

Two post-intervention monitoring and relator-share negotiation advisory call types that arrive on DOJ's settlement timeline: (1) relator-share negotiation and § 3730(d) fee coordination advisory call — arrives when DOJ is prepared to finalize the settlement and the relator's share must be determined, requiring the attorney to analyze whether the proposed share reflects the relator's actual contribution to the prosecution (including the strength of the documentary evidence the relator provided, the relator's availability as a testifying witness, and the relator's cooperation in providing information about additional fraud instances discovered by DOJ's investigation), whether the § 3730(d)(1) fee award should be negotiated simultaneously with the relator's share or separately, and whether the defendant's settlement agreement properly addresses the § 3730(d)(1) attorney fee obligation as a defendant-paid obligation (not deducted from the relator's share) (48–52 min); (2) post-settlement relator protection and false claims compliance advisory call — arrives when the FCA settlement is finalized and the relator must navigate the post-settlement period (including the relator's potential obligation to cooperate with the government's post-settlement monitoring of the defendant's compliance with the Corporate Integrity Agreement required by the HHS OIG in most healthcare FCA settlements, the relator's confidentiality obligations regarding settlement terms under the typical sealed settlement agreement, and the relator's rights under § 3730(e)(4) original source status if a similar action is filed by a later whistleblower about the same defendant) (46–50 min). At 55% untracked: 4 post-intervention matters × 5 calls × 50 min × 55% = 550 min / 60 ≈ 9.2 hours = $3,208/year at $350/hr.

How ClaimHour fits qui tam relator's practice

If you represent FCA relators in sealed investigations under § 3730(b)(2) — with relator contact advisory calls arriving on the relator's information development schedule throughout the 1–3 year sealed period with no billing cycle running, with no court docket, and with no opposing counsel correspondence to generate billing anchors — with DOJ coordination and investigator conference advisory calls arriving on the government's investigation calendar when DOJ investigators need information from the relator — and with post-intervention monitoring and relator-share negotiation advisory calls arriving on DOJ's settlement timeline when DOJ initiates the relator-share negotiation — and if your § 3730(d) attorney fee petitions must survive the defendant's review of the sealed-period billing record under the consistent-methodology inference of Welch v. Metropolitan Life, 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), and Jean's fees-on-fees doctrine under Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) — ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access