Guttman Buschner LLP

Articles

By

China’s Environment & Development under Carbon Neutrality & De-globalization

China is going through fundamental environmental improvement, with traditional pollution of air, water and soil largely past the inflection point of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. Climate change has become the dominant environmental issue. Carbon neutrality has gained crucial momentum in the past three years and all major economies have set national targets for it. China’s plan is to achieve carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. The COVID-19 pandemic has come to its end after three years of rampage, but the ongoing US-China trade war and de-globalization are creating new challenges for the deploy of environmental and carbon-neutral technologies and supply chains. In response to the new phase of China’s environmental and climate issues, the PACE 2023 Annual Conference will explore (but not limit to) the era of environmental post-turning point and carbon neutral policies and implementation, development challenges and opportunities, domestic and global governance and other related topics, to serve country’s need of environmental improvement and sustainable development in the new age.

Keynote speakers include Dan Guttman, Of Counsel at Guttman, Buschner & Brooks, PLLC.

Learn more here.

By

Supreme Court justices’ unethical Code of Conduct

The justices’ cavalier treatment of the laws on the books makes it even more clear that broader regulation is needed.

By Nancy Gertner and Stephen Gillers

The Supreme Court’s reputation is plummeting . The decline is driven partly by the view that the court is politicized as well as by the justices’ dismissal of existing laws that are applicable to them.

The court has refused to adopt the Code of Conduct that binds other federal judges, albeit adapted to recognize the court’s unique position. Congress has been urged to enacta code, but partisan divisions and concerns about its authority may prevent it from doing so.

Apart from an ethics code, two other problems contribute to the public’s loss of confidence: the recusal statute and the financial disclosure statute.

Read the entire article at https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/06/29/opinion/supreme-court-justices-unethical-code-conduct/.

By

High Court False Claims Ruling Underscores Communication Is Key

Federal contractors should avoid taking unjustifiable risks when interpreting regulations—and then submitting bills to the US government— if they want to stay out of False Claims Act trouble.

That’s one of the takeaways from Justice Clarence Thomas’ June 1 opinion in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., which reinstated FCA suits alleging the SuperValu and Safeway Inc. grocery chains overcharged Medicare and Medicaid for prescription drugs.

The unanimous opinion had law firms that represent FCA defendants sending out client alerts, saying to prepare for less success in motions to dismiss. But the opinion doesn’t appear to be a pro-plaintiff game-changer beyond being a reprieve from what would have been a devastating defeat for those that try to uncover fraud, attorneys told Bloomberg Law.

This is “going to generally be a fact question that isn’t susceptible to a resolution on a motion to dismiss,” said Reuben A. Guttman of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC, a firm that represents whistleblowers.

But “I don’t think the opinion changed the rules of the game” for litigating FCA cases. “The opinion is true to the statute and consistent with the common law of fraud,” he said.

The dual cases arrived from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had rejected the two suits for lack of scienter because SuperValu Inc. and Safeway had offered a reasonable regulatory interpretation. And the companies had unsuccessfully urged the Supreme Court to find that intent must be lacking if their interpretation of an ambiguous rule was objectively reasonable.

Writing for a unanimous court, Thomas said the Seventh Circuit improperly failed to consider evidence of subjective intent—that the companies believed they were wrongly seeking payments from the government.

Read the entire article here: https://news.bloombergtax.com/financial-accounting/high-court-false-claims-ruling-underscores-communication-is-key

By

Trump Sex Abuse Trial Loss Charts Evidence Rules Road Map

Author E. Jean Carroll’s $5 million victory in her defamation and sexual assault trial against former President Donald Trump can be traced to pretrial motion practice and the reliance on evidentiary rules — unique to sexual assault cases — that in large measure preordained the verdict.

The “Ask E. Jean” columnist began her legal quest in 2019, when she filed a case — Carroll v. Trump in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — that has come to be known as Carroll I,[1] asserting a claim that Trump had defamed her by publicly calling her recounting of a sexual assault in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room a “totally false accusation.”

At the time, Carroll could not make a direct legal claim for sexual assault, because the statute of limitations had long since passed.

Then, in May 2022, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed into law the Adult Survivors Act, which opened a one-year window allowing past survivors of sexual assault to file a legal claim. Carroll took this opportunity to file a second suit seeking redress for what would have otherwise been a time-barred claim.

On Nov. 24, 2022, the day the Adult Survivors Act went into effect, Carroll filed her second lawsuit — Carroll II — against the former president, seeking damages for both the alleged rape and for alleged defamatory statements made by Trump after he left office.[2]

Although both cases were initially scheduled for trial this spring, the presiding judge paused the Carroll I case to allow Carroll II to proceed to trial first, culminating in the jury’s May 9 verdict against the former president.

It may well have been an under-the-radar pretrial order entered in Carroll I[3] — and later adopted in Carroll II[4] — that paved the way for the jury’s verdict. That order, allowing the admission of damaging “prior bad act” evidence against Trump, illustrates the importance of oft-overlooked evidentiary rules, and perhaps even broadens their application.

On March 10, U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled in the Carroll I defamation case that Carroll would be allowed to introduce evidence that Trump had previously committed sexual assault against other women — even though Carroll was not suing him for rape in that case.

As a starting point, the concept of propensity evidence should be familiar to a layperson. After all, in our daily lives, it is human nature to consider a person’s past actions in figuring out, say, who took the last cookie from the cookie jar: If they’ve done it before, they probably did it this time.

Of course, how we informally assign blame in everyday matters is markedly different from the rigors of evidentiary rules designed to afford litigants due process in the courtroom — from the beginning, our constitutional standards have insisted that the prosecutor or
plaintiff cannot, as a general rule, rest a legal claim on evidence of prior bad conduct.

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1) states that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.”

While Rule 404 lists exceptions, those exceptions are very limited and rarely come into play in civil cases.

In 1994, however, Rules 413, 414 and 415 were adopted, expanding the circumstances under which propensity evidence could be admissible in highly sensitive cases.

Rule 413 addresses criminal cases and the introduction of evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases; Rule 414 addresses criminal cases and similar crimes in child molestation cases; and Rule 415 addresses similar acts in civil cases involving sexual assault or child molestation.

Carroll’s lawyers relied on Rule 415 to contend that the jury should hear about Trump’s past alleged conduct as evidence in the defamation case that he falsely denied attacking Carroll and accused her of making up the incident.

Their argument was apparently persuasive to the judge — and should serve as a reminder to trial lawyers everywhere that close familiarity with the rules of evidence can be the key to success.

In his decision, Judge Kaplan held in the Carroll I defamation case that the jury could hear testimony from two other alleged victims of the former president, and that Carroll’s legal team could present audio of Trump’s now-infamous commentary about women from the “Access Hollywood” tape.

The judge explained that

[m]ost of the evidence that Mr. Trump seeks to keep from the trial jury is to the effect that Mr. Trump allegedly has abused or attempted to abuse women other than Ms. Carroll in ways that are comparable to what he allegedly did to Ms. Carroll. In other words, Ms. Carroll offers the evidence to show that Mr. Trump has a propensity for such behavior.

Noting that propensity evidence is ordinarily excluded, the judge went on to say that

Congress enacted Rule 415, which created an important exception to that principle. In a civil case “based on a party’s alleged sexual assault,” as that term is defined in the rules, “evidence that the [defendant] committed any other sexual assault” may be admitted in such cases.

Of course, what makes the application of Rule 415 in the Carroll I case noteworthy was that — unlike Carroll’s second lawsuit — the case did not involve a separate claim for rape.

Because damages were claimed not for the alleged rape itself, but for Trump’s allegedly false denial of the event, the judge had to make a threshold determination of whether evidence of Trump’s past words and behavior could be used to prove that he lied about assaulting Carroll.

Before evaluating the applicability of the propensity evidence exception, Judge Kaplan outlined the Rule 415 analysis:

(a) whether this is a case “based on [an] alleged sexual assault,” (b) whether the evidence Mr. Trump seeks to exclude is evidence of “other sexual assault[s],” and even if both are so, (c) whether Rule 403 warrants exclusion.

Trump argued that the case was not “based on” a sexual assault, because proof of an assault is not an essential element to a claim for relief for defamation.

But the judge declined to make such a categorical ruling, instead grounding his decision in the simple facts of the case. He held that Rule 415 applied, and the propensity evidence was admissible, because proving up the sexual assault was essential to proving the falsity of Trump’s statements: “Unless she proves that [sexual] assault, she cannot establish that Mr. Trump’s charge that her story was a lie and a hoax was false.”

It then follows that Rule 415 can be applied to a legal theory — in this case, defamation — that involves an essential act that falls within the scope of the rule’s exception to the exclusion principle, even if the claim itself does not involve sexual violence.

Once he determined that evidence of the former president’s propensity to commit acts of sexual assault was admissible under Rule 415, Judge Kaplan then turned his attention to the specific evidence Carroll sought to present: the recording of Trump’s hot mic statements on the “Access Hollywood” tape, and testimony from two women who also alleged they had been attacked.

First, in determining whether the “Access Hollywood” tape contained admissible evidence of a sexual assault, Judge Kaplan noted that he was required to “decide under Rule 104(b) whether a reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the past act was ‘an offense of sexual assault’ under Rule 413(d)’s definition and that it was committed by the defendant.'”

Applying Rule 413’s broad definition of sexual assault, the judge found that the

jury reasonably could find, even from the Access Hollywood Tape alone, that Mr. Trump admitted in the Access Hollywood tape that he in fact has had contact with women’s genitalia without their consent, or that he has attempted to do so.

In allowing the evidence, the judge noted that he was not ascribing meaning to the former president’s words — only that the tape was properly admissible under Rule 415, and that the jury should be afforded the opportunity to receive and weigh the evidence as it saw fit.

Applying a similar analysis, the court found that Rule 415 applied to the testimony of the two other alleged victims.

Again, Judge Kaplan took pains to avoid casting judgment on or interpretation of the witnesses’ testimony, noting that the only issue to be decided by the court was whether a reasonable juror could believe that the testimony described unwanted or attempted sexual contact. Because he found the jury could reasonably do so, the judge held that the evidence satisfied Rule 415.

Finally, Judge Kaplan turned his attention to Rule 403, which filters out otherwise admissible evidence with a probative value that is substantially outweighed by, among other things, its prejudice.

As with all trial evidence, even though the “Access Hollywood” tape and witness testimony met the requirements of Rule 415, it could still be excluded from trial if it was unfairly prejudicial to the defense.

In beginning his analysis of the In beginning his analysis of the probative value of the propensity evidence, the judge noted the significance of the evidence: “This is, in the vernacular, … a ‘he said, she said’ case, and it is one that turns on an alleged event more than two decades ago.”

Judge Kaplan then posited that Trump’s “best argument is that these three alleged incidents were widely separated in time.”

But the court disposed of this argument, explaining that “Rule 415, unlike other provisions of the Rules of Evidence, contains no temporal limits on the admissibility of evidence of other sexual assaults in a sexual assault case.”

Ultimately, because he found no persuasive reason to believe that any potential risks substantially outweighed the probative value of the evidence, the judge allowed Carroll to present the tape and the witness testimony to the jury.

Not long after the order was entered, Carroll I was paused while Carroll II — the two-count rape and defamation case — went to trial.

On March 27, shortly before that trial began, Judge Kaplan issued an order adopting his prior evidentiary rulings, noting that because Carroll II involved direct allegations of sexual assault, the “based upon” analysis no longer had a bearing.

Still, the judge’s based-upon analysis could well become a template for survivors to present evidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts in cases where the cause of action is based on, but does not actually include, an allegation of sexual assault.

While E. Jean celebrates her trial victory in Carroll II, astute trial lawyers should take special note of the ruling in Carroll I, issued without fanfare but heralding broad implications for applying the Rule 415 exception.

Carroll’s pretrial success teaches that Rule 415 can be applied where the cause of action itself is not a sexual assault, but is based on — or perhaps turns on — a jury’s finding that a sexual assault occurred.

Beyond its use in defamation cases, the Rule 415 exception might apply to Title VII litigation, civil rights cases, or any case in tort where the legal claim turns on the jury answering an interrogatory about the occurrence of a sexual assault.

The case also serves as another important reminder that diligent investigation and evidence collection, along with a robust understanding and strategic application of the evidentiary rules, can tip the scales in close cases.

Trials may well be won — or lost — before the jury is even sworn in, and a lawyer’s comprehension and strategic invocation of the evidentiary rules cannot be left just for trial.

Beginning in the earliest stages of investigating a case, attorneys should make use of the rules to inform their approach to discovery and depositions, to refine their preparation for trial, and to zealously advocate their theory of the case.

For example, in deposing others who have had similar experiences, or in investigating their claims, attorneys should pose questions that flesh out whether the alleged prior conduct was a sexual assault as defined by Rule 413(d).

To the extent that those questions would require a granular inquiry as to the alleged assault, the line of questioning should be thought out in advance because of the delicate nature of the subject matter.

Had the judge excluded Trump’s “Access Hollywood” statements and the testimony of other alleged victims, the verdict in Carroll’s trial may well have been different.

Because her lawyers prevailed in their pretrial motions, she ultimately won at trial — and in doing so, provided a road map for other survivors to use the rules of evidence to hold defendants to account.

That road map involves a diligent investigation with a constant eye toward how the facts play out in a narrative that will be admissible in a court of law.

It is a process that requires not just the application of Rule 415, but also other evidentiary arrows in the quiver of trial lawyers, including rules defining hearsay and its exceptions, the rules governing relevance and, of course, the rules of authentication.

Particularly in an era where emails and videos and social media can tell a story even without a witness on the stand, the rules of evidence can turn the case. And this is what Carroll’s lawsuit taught us.

___________________________________

Reuben Guttman is a partner at Guttman Buschner & Brooks PLLC. He is co-author of “Pretrial Advocacy” (NITA/Wolters Kluwer 2023).

Whitney Untiedt is a trial lawyer in Miami. She is a member of the Board of Trustees for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employer, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

[1] Carroll v. Trump, et al., No. 20-cv-07311 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).

[2] Carroll v. Trump, No. 22-cv-10016 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.).

[3] Carroll I, Dkt 145, No. 20-cv-7311 (LAK), 2023 WL 2441795 (S.D.N.Y.) (Mar. 10, 2023).

[4] Carroll II, Dkt 95, No. 22-cv-10016 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.) (Mar. 27, 2023).

By

On Demand CLE: Pretrial False Claims Act Litigation

Federal Bar Association Webinar – Recorded May 3, 2023

The False Claims Act, which dates back to the Lincoln Administration, provides the government the right to pursue individuals or entities that file or cause to be filed false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval with the Government.

The statute has “qui tam” provisions that allow private individuals – known as Relators – to file suit on behalf of the government. The government has a right to intervene in and take over these suits, but where the government elects not to do so, the Relator may pursue action on behalf of the government and secure a bounty.

Recent years have seen a trend whereby more and more suits are being pursued by Relators – and their counsel – absent government intervention.

From case investigation to pleading and motions practice, this 60-minute CLE program will provide an introductory boot camp on the False Claims Act pretrial advocacy.

Agenda

  • Client intake and interviews
  • Case investigation
  • Complaint preparation and FCA pleading requirements
  • Rule 12 Motions practice
  • FCA discovery issues
  • Summary Judgement
  • Experts
  • Evidentiary Rules relevant to an FCA case

Date / Time: ON emand, 1 hour.
Closed-captioning available

To learn more or to register visit https://mylawcle.com/products/pretrial-false-claims-act-litigation/

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Speakers:

Traci L. Buschner | Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC.

Traci L. Buschner is a founding member of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC. A former state prosecutor, Ms. Buschner has spent over 20 years representing plaintiffs in complex litigation ranging from class actions to government contract fraud. She has been involved in multi-million dollar recoveries on behalf of workers asserting claims under numerous federal statutes and has handled some of the largest successful False Claims Act actions, bringing billions of dollars to the United States Government. Examples of Ms. Buschner’s work include representing:

  • The lead whistleblower, Meredith McCoyd, in a False Claims Act case against Abbott Laboratories, resulting in a settlement of over $1.5 billion. The case involved Abbott’s illegal efforts to promote an anti-seizure medication, Depakote, through off-label marketing, misbranding and paying physicians to write prescriptions. The settlement was one of the largest recoveries by the United States Government under the False Claims Act against a pharmaceutical company
  • The lead whistleblowers in a False Claims Act case against Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Pfizer, resulting in a $257.4 million settlement. The settlement agreement outlined the company’s efforts – for over a decade – to unlawfully market a powerful immunosuppressant drug Rapamune, used to treat patients who have undergone kidney transplants
  • A former sales manager in a False Claims Act case against Amgen, Inc., culminating in a settlement of $24.9 million . The settlement agreement charged that Amgen paid kickbacks, in the guise of rebates, to long-term care pharmacies in exchange for switching nursing home patients from a competitor drug to Aranesp and encouraged pharmacists to recommend the drug for uses outside the drug’s FDA label
  • A nursing professional and former Sales Manager in a False Claims Act case resulting in a $1.04 billion settlement against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The relator alleged that GSK made false and misleading statements about Advair’s safety and efficacy, thus enabling false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other reimbursement programs
  • One of the six main whistleblowers in a False Claims Act case against Pfizer, Inc., which in 2009 resulted in the government’s recovery of $2.3 billion
  • A physician and two nurses in a False Claims Act case against Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), which resulted in the Government’s recovery of over $98 million related, in part, to unnecessary emergency room admissions at over 100 separate hospitals across the country
  • A certified professional coder in a False Claims Act case against a suburban New York oncology group, resulting in a $5.5 million dollar recovery based upon admissions of co-pay waiver and up-coding

Prior to joining GBB, she was an attorney with the Washington, D.C. office of one of the nation’s largest personal injury and labor firms and also practiced with an Austin, Texas firm where she represented victims of asbestos exposure.

Ms. Buschner has represented some of the nation’s largest labor unions and their members. On behalf of the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union (OCAW), AFL-CIO, Ms. Buschner was actively involved in environmental litigation which led to Secretary of Energy, William Richardson, canceling a project to recycle radioactive nickel at the Oak Ridge, Tennessee K-25 Nuclear Weapons Complex. The documentation of her efforts to expose faulty government contracting at Department of Energy Nuclear weapons sites was published in The Environmental Forum, Volume 17, No. 6, November/December 2000.

Ms. Buschner has been recognized for several years, by Washingtonian Magazine, as a top Whistleblower Lawyer. Her work on the Abbott False Claims Act case at Grant & Eisenhofer was featured in The National Law Journal, “Plaintiffs’ Hot List” (2011-2012).

Ms. Buschner currently serves on the Executive Committee of the Trial Lawyers Association of Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (TLA-DC) as the Treasurer and Miami University’s Pre-Law Alumni Board. She has also served as a faculty member (2011, 2012,2014 and 2016) for Emory University Law School’s Trial Techniques Program.

Ms. Buschner graduated from Miami University in 1990, and received her J.D. from the University of Louisville in 1995. She is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Kentucky; the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Ms. Buschner has co-authored two articles with colleague Reuben A. Guttman: “Patients Suffer from Drug Industry’s Chronic Greed,” Wall Street Journal MarketWatch (August 7, 2013) and “Taking the Next Step in Pharma Fraud,” American Constitution Society Blog (May 8, 2012).

Reuben A. Guttman | Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC

Reuben Guttman is a founding member of Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC (GBB).

His practice involves complex litigation and class actions. He has tried and/or litigated claims involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, environmental derelictions, antitrust, business interference and other common law torts or statutory violations.

The International Business Times called Mr. Guttman “one of the world’s most prominent whistleblower attorneys,” and he has been recognized as a Washingtonian Top Lawyer by Washingtonian Magazine. A February 19, 2015 profile of Mr Guttman by the Boston Globe’s STAT NEWS referred to him as the “Lawyer Pharma Loves to Hate.” Citing a $98 million recovery from Community Health Systems, Inc., Law 360 named Mr. Guttman a “Health Care MVP” and profiled him in a December 1, 2014 article. Author David Dayen, writing in his Book, Chain of Title (The New Press, 2016) cited Mr. Guttman’s work on behalf of robo-signing whistleblower, Lynn Szymoniak, noting “he had won some of the largest awards in the history of the False Claims Act; there was really nobody better for the case.” Writing in their book, The Corporate Whistleblower’s Survival Guide, (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2011), authors Tom Devine and Tarek F. Massarani wrote that “in settling qui tam litigation, [Mr. Guttman] has aggressively and successfully negotiated for corrective action against public health and safety consequences from prescription drug fraud.” In the book, When Good Companies Go Bad, (ABC CLIO, 2014), authors Donald Beachler and Thomas Shevory profiled Mr. Guttman’s off label marketing case against Abbott labs, involving the drug Depakote, which resulted in a $1.6 billion recovery in 2012 for state and federal governments. The Spring, 2013 Cover Story for the Emory Lawyer, profiled Mr. Guttman as one of Emory Law School’s leading players in the area of complex litigation noting that “even before filing a case, Guttman’s team engages in intensive investigation, retains experts and prepares as if a trial is imminent.”

Representing one of the six main whistleblowers in litigation, Mr. Guttman’s work resulted in the government’s September 2009, $2.3 billion settlement with Pfizer Pharmaceutical. In addition to the Abbott Lab’s $1.6 billion settlement in 2012, Mr. Guttman represented one of the main whistleblowers in a case against GlaxoSmithKline that returned over $3 billion to the government. That same year Mr. Guttman represented whistleblower, Lynn Szymoniak, whose qui tam case, involving fraudulent mortgage assignments, was resolved as part of the government’s $25 billion settlement with some of the world’s largest banks. The following year, in 2013, Mr. Guttman was lead counsel for the lead False Claims Act whistleblowers in a case involving the kidney-transplant drug, Rapamune. That case culminated on July 30, 2013 in a U.S. Department of Justice announcement that Pfizer had agreed to pay $491 million to settle criminal and civil charges stemming from the illegal marketing of Rapamune by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which was acquired by Pfizer in 2009. In 2013, Mr. Guttman was also lead counsel in a case against Amgen, Inc. et al., resulting in the recovery of $24.9 million. In 2014, Mr. Guttman recovered $4.19 million from co-defendant, Omnicare, and in 2015 he recovered another $2.15 million from co-defendant Pharmerica. On October 17, 2016, Mr. Guttman and his firm, GBB, announced the recovery of another $28 million from Omnicare. That same month, GBB announced the recovery of $5.3 million in a case involving fraudulent Medicare claims submitted by a New York State provider.

Mr. Guttman was counsel in U.S. ex rel. Johnson v. Shell Oil Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 528 (E.D. Tex. 1999), where over $300 million was recovered from the oil industry. On behalf of a European whistleblower, Mr. Guttman was counsel in litigation that resulted in a $13 million settlement.

He served as lead counsel in a series of cases resulting in the recovery of more than $30 million under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Cases brought by Mr. Guttman on behalf of nuclear weapons workers at “Manhattan Project” nuclear weapons sites resulted in congressional oversight and changes in procurement practices, and dread disease compensation legislation, covering the nation’s nuclear weapons complex workforce. A case brought by Mr. Guttman against the Secretary of Energy under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) resulted in the cancelling of a project to recycle radioactive Nickel at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Mr. Guttman served as lead counsel in litigation brought on behalf of prison workers in the District of Columbia, resulting in injunctive relief protecting workers against exposure to blood-borne pathogens and he served as lead counsel in a mediation before the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, resulting in work place standards and back pay for minority employees at a large Texas oil refinery.

In addition to his work on behalf of workers and whistleblowers, Mr. Guttman is the author and/or editor of numerous articles, book chapters, and technical publications.

His commentary and/or articles have appeared in Market Watch, American Lawyer Media, AOL Government, Accounting Today, the Jerusalem Post, the International Business Times, the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, The Hill, Forbes, Law 360, Blog of The American Constitution Society, and the Fulton County Reporter. Mr. Guttman has written almost 100 commentaries on politics and the law for The Global Legal Post – www.globallegalpost.com. He was a founder and contributing editor and a writer for The Regulatory Analyst; Medical Waste (Warren, Gorham & Lamont, Publishers)

His article, Pharmaceutical Regulation in the United States: A Confluence of Influences, was published in Chinese by the Peking University Public Interest Law Journal, Vol. 1, Page 187 (2010). He is co-author (with Professor Paul Zwier) of A Failure of Remedies: The Case Against Big Pharma, (Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review, 2016). He is also co-author (with Jennifer Williams) of Controlling Government Contractors; Can the False Claims Act be More Effective (Sedona Conference Journal Vol. 14, Fall, 2013). And he is a co-author (with Professor Paul Zwier) of The New World of Electoral Politics and What It Means; An Introductory Essay, (Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review, 2017).

Mr. Guttman is co-author of SEC v. HG Pharmaceutical and Gonzalez v. Hewitt which are “case files” published by the Emory University School of Law Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution and used to train law students and practicing attorneys. He is also co-author of the case file, United States ex Rel Rodriguez v Hughes, et. al (Defendants Materials, Relators Materials, Faculty Materials), (National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 2016). Mr. Guttman is author or co-author of Chapters 5-10 in Internal Investigations: How to Protect Your Clients or Companies in the Global, Post Dodd-Frank World (Practicing Law Institute, 2012). He is co-author (With Professor Kathryn Wagner) of The Asbestos Model; Labor and Citizens Groups and a Multipronged Approach to Regulatory Change (published as Chapter 5 in Conflict Resolution and Public Policy, (Edited by Miriam K. Mills, Greenwood Press, 1990). He served as an advisory board member and Chapter author for Environmental Management in Healthcare Facilities (W.B. Saunders, 1998). He is co-author with Professor J.C. Lore of Pretrial Advocacy, (Lexis-Nexis and the National Institute of Trial Advocacy) (Work in progress to be published, Fall 2017).

He has appeared on ABC Nightly News, CNN, Bloomberg News, and has been quoted in major publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New York Post, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News and national wire services including the Associated Press, Reuters and Bloomberg.

In addition to his writings, Mr. Guttman has testified before committees of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate on the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). In 1992, he advised President-elect Clinton’s transition team on labor policy and worker health and safety regulation.

He has been a Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor at the Emory University School of Law Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution and has been a Team Leader for Emory Law School’s Kessler-Eidson Trial Techniques Program. He served on the Emory Law School Dean’s Advisory Board and received the Emory Law School Alumni Service Award in 2015. He is a founder of and Senior Advisor to the Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review (ECGAR), and a faculty member of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. Mr. Guttman has also served as an Adjunct Professor at the Rutgers University School of Law.

As part of a U.S. State Department program in conjunction with the Emory law Center for Advocacy and Dispute Resolution, he has been one of five visiting professors at Universidad Panamericana in Mexico City, training Mexican Judges and practitioners on oral advocacy and trial practice. He has been a guest lecturer at a number of universities including John Hopkins, the University of Pennsylvania, Jiao Tong University in Shanghai, Peking University in Beijing and Renmin University in Beijing. In 2006, the Dutch Embassy in China invited him to share his perspectives with experts in China about changes to the nation’s labor laws.

Mr. Guttman earned his law degree at Emory University School of Law, (1985), and his Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Rochester, (1981). He began his legal career as Washington, DC counsel for the Service Employees International Union, (SEIU), AFL-CIO where he served from 1985 until 1990. He is admitted to practice in the State of Georgia; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; the State of New Jersey; the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia, the District of New Jersey, the District of Nebraska, the Northern District of Georgia, the District of Maryland, the Western District of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and the United States Courts of Appeal for the Third Circuit, the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit.

Mr. Guttman is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Mr. Guttman served on the board of the American constitution society and currently serves on the advisory board. He is the founder of www.whistleblowerlaws.com.