Business As Usual? The Surprising Alignment Between Corporate Defense Firms and Whistleblowers

Publicly, corporate defense firms have long shied away from representing whistleblowers. The interests of whistleblowers and defense firms seem diametrically opposed. After all, these firms defend corporations from the very allegations of corruption often brought forth by whistleblowers. However, a 2022 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revealed that six U.S. corporate defense firms, including Akin Gump and Winston & Strawn, had successfully represented and obtained rewards for whistleblowers. This finding challenges the traditional notion that these parties are always in opposition. At the time of the FOIA request, most whistleblower claims were still under SEC review (and remain so today). It is likely this figure substantially underestimates the frequency with which corporate defense firms represent whistleblowers before the SEC. There could be even more from the many other whistleblower programs that have not yet been subject to disclosure requests.

Defense firms have practical reasons for quietly representing whistleblowers despite concern over client perceptions. Whistleblower laws allow firms to self-report corruption and fraud, and to efficiently resolve cases. This creates an incentive for defense firms to take on whistleblower cases when it benefits both their clients and themselves. 

High-ranking corporate officials often seek protection when under investigation, making them good candidates for whistleblowing. These clients have valuable insider information and, under US laws, may still qualify for awards even if they participated in misconduct. By entering a whistleblower program, these officials can minimize their risk of prosecution or sanctions, making reporting attractive for them and their defense counsel. 

This explains the growing trend of prestigious defense firms quietly representing whistleblowers. However, for such cooperation to truly benefit both firms and whistleblowers, defense firms must understand the unique intricacies of whistleblower litigation.

Corporate Clients as Whistleblowers

After the FOIA release, Corporate Crime Reporter reached out to the corporate attorneys identified as having represented whistleblowers. Kit Addleman of Hayes & Boone replied, stating that he had not been retained specifically to represent whistleblowers. ‘Rather’, Addleman continued, ‘I have been retained to represent specific clients in government investigations who have been able, in isolated instances, to make a whistleblower claim for an award’.The most effective whistleblowers are usually high-level insiders, who often have some involvement in the fraud they disclose. While whistleblower laws generally prohibit the mastermind of a fraud from being credited as a whistleblower, they do not impose a ‘clean hands’ requirement. In other words, a whistleblower does not need to be innocent of all wrongdoing in order to qualify for an award. Investigative agencies recognize the value of whistleblower disclosures, and are often willing to offer whistleblowers generous non-prosecution agreements in exchange for their information. Thus, many high-level corporate clients can be well-served by making a whistleblower claim.

Whistleblower cases are also highly profitable for firms representing whistleblowers. Stephen Kohn, a leading whistleblower attorney, stated in Corporate Crime Reporter that he believed the efficiency and effectiveness of whistleblower reward structures had attracted corporate firms to whistleblower litigation: ‘These laws are so successful that these corporate firms have risked alienating clients to get involved’.

This profitability is demonstrated by statistics on award payments from the US’s major whistleblower programs in the past two decades. The Internal Revenue Service paid $1.3 billion in whistleblower awards for tax violations between 2007 and 2024, and made international headlines in 2012 when it paid a $104 million award to Swiss banking whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld. The SEC, which investigates foreign fraudulent activity through enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, has paid over $2.2 billion in whistleblower awards since 2010. Finally, settlements based on whistleblower tips under the False Claims Act exceeded $5.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 alone, and false claims whistleblowers have received over $9.9 billion in awards since the program was established in 1986.

It is no wonder, then, that corporate defense firms are choosing to utilize whistleblower reward programs on behalf of their highly knowledgeable clientele. Corporate firms representing industry insiders are extraordinarily well-positioned to submit whistleblower tips and, eventually, secure whistleblower awards on their clients’ behalf. 

Anonymity and Leniency

The whistleblower reporting process is not only beneficial to corporate employees blowing the whistle on their employers; it can also benefit corporations themselves. Corporations that self-report misconduct can receive leniency from enforcement officials, just as whistleblowers involved in fraud can be offered non-prosecution agreements and awards for their information. In this way, using government reporting channels does not necessarily conflict with a corporation’s interest. Rather, use of these channels can lead to a more efficient, less hostile enforcement process and reduce corrupt business practices, which is in all actors’ interests.

Lisa Phelan, a former Chief in the US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division who now works in corporate defense, described in an interview with the Corporate Crime Reporter how disclosures to federal agencies—either by a whistleblower or by a corporation through the DOJ’s corporate leniency program—can lead to quieter, more efficient enforcement actions against a company and, ultimately, milder sanctions against that company and its leaders. 

‘It took a while for defense counsel to realize the value of doing this was tremendous for the company’, said Phelan. ‘Once the ball started rolling though, it became very popular’. Phelan specifically noted that it is possible for a whistleblower to qualify for protection and a monetary award while a company simultaneously qualifies for leniency; the two programs are not mutually exclusive.

While government enforcement efforts often threaten corporate interests to some degree, the two are not always at odds. Cooperation with the government, particularly through whistleblower programs, can offer corporate clients the opportunity to settle allegations of misconduct quickly and quietly, with minimal damage to a company. Such procedures support the public and governments’ interests in preventing corruption while allowing corporations to quickly return to business as usual.

The Value of Expertise

Corporate defense firms are likely to find themselves with ideal whistleblowers as clients, but they may also struggle to know how to best approach whistleblower cases. Whistleblower law is a highly intricate field that has changed and expanded rapidly over the last two decades. To give two examples, the US’s major securities and commodities whistleblower programs were only established in 2010, and the UK unveiled a groundbreaking new tax whistleblower program in November of 2025.

To maximize their ability to secure beneficial agreements and large awards for their clients, corporate defense firms may wish to consult with experienced whistleblower lawyers on best practices for litigating whistleblower cases. Experienced whistleblower attorneys can help firms navigate the complex filing procedures and regulations of transnational whistleblower laws to qualify their whistleblower for an award. Especially when pursuing awards that can reach over $100 million, the ability to follow detailed procedures is critical.

Under most of the US’s transnational anti-corruption laws, whistleblowers can receive awards ranging from 10% to 30% of the sanctions obtained, but agencies will adjust this percentage based on a wide range of factors. Precisely meeting these criteria can significantly affect the size of the award a whistleblower receives, making it critical that attorneys representing whistleblowers are deeply familiar with them. Research has shown that attorneys who have previously obtained whistleblower awards for their clients tend to secure significantly larger awards than attorneys representing whistleblowers for the first time.

Finally, in order to avail themselves of the confidentiality protections offered by US anti-corruption laws, whistleblowers must be represented by a US-licensed attorney. For all these reasons, attorneys representing whistleblowers worldwide can greatly benefit from working with US counsel to ensure that their clients secure the largest possible awards with minimal personal risk.

Alice Wanamaker is the Public Interest Law Fellow at Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto LLP.

Jeana Lee is the Programs Manager at the National Whistleblower Center.

Benjamin Calitri is an Associate at Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto LLP.