Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1 (1)
Legal Profession Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

You Need A Lawyer

By Michael Frisch

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a false claims suit

The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claims alleging violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq., because he was proceeding pro se. Claims under the False Claims Act “belong to the government,” not the relator. U.S. ex rel. Lovern v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, No. 14-7186, 2015 WL 2226230, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 6, 2015) (citing Vt. Agency of Nat. Res. v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 773-74 & n.4 (2000)). While parties may conduct “their own cases” pro se, U.S.C. § 1654, a non-attorney “cannot appear [pro se] and seek to represent others,” Collins v. O’Brien, 208 F.2d 44, 45 (D.C. Cir. 1953); cf. Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (holding that non-attorney could “appear pro se but [was] not qualified to appear . . . as counsel for others”). Because a False Claims Act relator pursues the government’s claims rather than the relator’s own claims, this rule precludes relators from proceeding pro se.

The False Claims Act contains no exception to that background rule. On the contrary, the “relator in a [False Claims Act] action needs qualified legal counsel to ensure that the real party at interest, the United States, is adequately represented.” U.S. ex rel. Rockefeller v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 274 F. Supp. 2d 10, 16 (D.D.C. 2003). Indeed, permitting a relator to proceed pro se would risk binding the government to an adverse judgment that might be avoided with the aid of competent counsel. See Wojcicki v. SCANA/SCE&G, 947 F.3d 240, 244 (4th Cir. 2020). And because only one person may bring a qui tam action under the False Claims Act based on a particular set of underlying facts, see 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5), allowing a relator to proceed pro se could prevent another “better-equipped” party from pursuing the claim. Wojcicki, 947 F.3d at 244.

For these reasons, we join every other court of appeals to have addressed the question in holding that relator claims under the False Claims Act cannot proceed pro se.

(Mike Frisch)