William Tucker

Associate | He/Him/His

Overview

Will Tucker is an associate in the firm's Washington, D.C. office, where he practices in the Government Contracts and Health Care groups. Will represents clients in a range of complex litigation and counseling engagements.

His litigation practice spans both plaintiff-side and defense work, including False Claims Act cases and claims recovery suits. Will also represents clients bringing contract claims before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and in bid protests before the Government Accountability Office.

In his counseling practice Will helps clients navigate investigations and other relationships with federal and state regulators, often regarding the use of emerging technologies and implementation of new business models. His counseling practice covers fraud and abuse compliance and investigations, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act compliance audits, state licensure guidance, and state procurement procedures, among other issues.

Will maintains an active pro bono practice, including as a member of Crowell’s Racial Justice Pro Bono Task Force. He currently represents a diverse group of plaintiffs in a federal voting rights lawsuit. Will previously contributed to an amicus brief regarding the constitutional consequences of participation in insurrection, counseled a nonprofit on the HIPAA and fraud and abuse implications of a proposed business relationship, represented a mother in custody proceedings, and assisted on an affirmative asylum petition.

Will received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, where he served on the management board of the Virginia Journal of International Law and on the inaugural board of the Law, Innovation, Security, and Technology Society. Will was also a member of the First Amendment Litigation Clinic.

Before law school, Will received his B.A. from Bowdoin College, where he majored in Government and Legal Studies and minored in Music Composition.

Career & Education

|
    • Bowdoin College, B.A., 2014
    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2020
    • Bowdoin College, B.A., 2014
    • University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 2020
    • District of Columbia
    • District of Columbia

William's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24

Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions....

William's Insights

Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.22.24

Trick or Treat? What You Need to Know About a First-of-its-Kind Decision Declaring FCA Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional

Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently declared the False Claims Act qui tam provisions unconstitutional in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, -- F.Supp.3d --, 2024 WL 4349242 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2024), turning up the heat on a simmering constitutional fight that is increasingly likely to reach the Supreme Court in the next few years. Judge Mizelle's decision was the first to strike down the FCA qui tam provisions, but not the first to consider the issue. Arguments challenging the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions proliferated after Justice Thomas indicated some doubt about the qui tam device in his dissent in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). But every other judge to consider the issue has upheld the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions....