Photo of Harold Malkin

Harold Malkin is an experienced litigator and Chair of Lane Powell’s Investigations, Compliance and White Collar Team. Before joining Lane Powell, Harold served more than 20 years at the U.S. Department of Justice, most recently as the Deputy Civil Chief and Chief of the Affirmative Civil Enforcement Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle.

During his career in federal law enforcement, Harold led and successfully resolved numerous multi-million dollar civil and parallel civil/criminal investigations of government program and procurement fraud under the False Claims Act and its qui tam (whistleblower) provisions.

He has decades of experience counseling clients on issues related to:

  • Medicare and Medicaid fraud by institutional and individual providers,
  • Defense procurement and other types of government program fraud,
  • White collar crime, and
  • Schemes to obtain government contracts and grants set aside for small and minority-owned businesses and other targeted recipients.

Harold frequently defends corporations facing enforcement actions brought by the Washington State Attorney General’s Office under the Consumer Protection Act.

He also has broad experience with civil penalty matters involving drug diversion and other violations of the Controlled Substances Act by physicians, pharmacies, hospitals and other Drug Enforcement Administration registrants.

Harold interrupted his 15-year tenure with the U.S. Attorney’s Office from 2001-2007 to serve as a partner at a leading Seattle litigation firm, where he conducted internal corporate investigations and defended individuals and companies under civil and criminal investigation by state and federal authorities. He also served six years as a Trial Attorney in the Civil Fraud Section of the Civil Division of DOJ in Washington, D.C.

fraud photoHealthcare news and information site RACmonitor reported with some fanfare in early November of last year that DOJ Civil Fraud Section Director Michael Granston (a friend and former DOJ colleague) had announced at a conference on October 30 that DOJ would begin to seriously consider urging courts to dismiss meritless qui tam or whistleblower actions brought under the False Claims Act at or shortly after the government had reached its intervention decision.

On November 17, Law360 reported that DOJ, in response to RACmonitor’s reporting, had denied adopting a more aggressive stance towards seeking dismissal of qui tam actions it had determined to be lacking in merit.

Now we learn that DOJ’s denial of a policy change to Law360 back in November was not entirely accurate. Indeed, on January 10, the same Michael Granston quoted by RACmonitor issued an internal memorandum  marked “Privileged and Confidential; For Internal Government Use Only” announcing a general framework for evaluating when to seek dismissal of qui tam actions, pursuant to 31 USC § 3730(c)(2)(A)—something DOJ has only sparingly done over the last 30 years since the FCA was substantially amended.

Continue Reading To Dismiss or Not to Dismiss? That Is the Question