Emerging Litigation Podcast
Litigators and other professionals share their thoughts on ELP about new legal theories, new areas of litigation, and how existing (sometimes old) laws are being asked to respond to emerging risks. The podcast is designed for plaintiff attorneys, defense counsel, corporations, risk professionals, litigation support companies, law students, or anyone interested in the law. The host is Tom Hagy, long-time legal news writer and enthusiast. He is former editor and publisher of Mealey's Litigation Reports, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of HB Litigation, co-owner of Critical Legal Content, and Editor-in-Chief of multiple legal blogs for clients. Contact him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
Emerging Litigation Podcast
When Algorithms Find Fraud: The New False Claims Act with Tom Suddath and David Bender
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
A False Claims Act case used to conjure up an insider with evidence of fraud. Increasingly, it may start somewhere very different: a public dataset, a spreadsheet, and an algorithm looking for patterns.
In this episode, I’m joined by Tom Suddath and David Bender of Reed Smith to talk about data-driven FCA litigation and DOJ’s Focus Initiative—Broad Oversight Through Careful Use of Statistics—and what it could mean for healthcare enforcement in 2026 and beyond.
Healthcare is particularly fertile ground because Medicare and Medicaid generate enormous volumes of billing data. But spotting an unusual pattern and proving fraud are two very different things. We get into the role of Rule 9(b), the importance of pleading fraud with particularity, and perhaps the hardest question for a case built largely on statistics: How do you prove someone knowingly submitted a false claim?
We also talk about AI’s role on both sides. The same tools that can help uncover patterns and build a complaint can help defendants find counterexamples, test assumptions, and offer innocent explanations for seemingly suspicious data.
For healthcare organizations, there’s a practical lesson here too: the data being mined by potential relators can also be used internally to identify compliance problems before someone else does.
Jump in for a conversation about False Claims Act enforcement, healthcare fraud, data mining, AI, and what happens when an anomaly becomes the beginning of a fraud case.
______________________________________
Thanks for listening!
If you like what you hear please give us a rating. You'd be amazed at how much that helps.
If you have questions for Tom or would like to participate, you can reach him at Editor@LitigationConferences.com.
Ask him about creating this kind of content for your firm -- podcasts, webinars, blogs, articles, papers, and more.
Lincoln’s Law And The New Playbook
Tom HagyHello and welcome to the Emerging Litigation Podcast. I'm your host, Tom Hagy. Today we're going to talk about Lincoln's law. This is the law that goes back to the Civil War days when military contractors were ripping off the government for whatever lame meals, lousy food, uniforms that fell apart. Nobody needs that. It's called the False Claims Act, as anybody who's familiar with it knows. That has to do with identifying fraud against the government. And a lot of the tips about fraud, lower list fraud, have come from insiders, people with knowledge of the conduct and practices of companies, how they bill and how they overbill, overcharge government. But now litigants, False Claims Act enforcers, relators, investigators, and others, they're relying a lot now on finding trends in data. Specifically, we're today we're talking about healthcare data. So if you go through the troves of data that's available publicly from the government and you spot trends, you can see that there may be some irregularities that may warrant some additional attention and scrutiny from the government. That is, they may be getting ripped off. I think that's what it comes down to. That's not specifically in the law itself, but you know, in my summary. So what we're going to talk about today is recognizing the use of data mining and data safaris or fraud safaris or fraud hunting. Uh, the government is encouraging uh folks to use these large data troves to help them find cases. Their objective is enforcement. They want to find these people, they want to persecute, persecute them, they want to find these people, and they want to prosecute them. In addition to identifying fraud, uh they believe that use of this data will also help the government build stronger cases. Joining me to discuss this are two attorneys from Reed Smith. You've heard of them. One is uh lives near me, outside of Philadelphia. He is Tom Suddath. He is a former assistant U.S. attorney. He now focuses on False Claims Act cases, white-collar crime, and government investigations, particularly in the healthcare sector. So I appreciate Tom coming back uh on the podcast. We talked about this before, so I'm glad to have him back. You know, he may be questioning his life choices. Joining Tom is David Bender. He's counsel in ReadSmith's Washington, D.C. office. And there, his practice includes healthcare litigation, regulatory matters, Medicare and Medicaid disputes, compliance counseling, and of course, the topic today, false claim back. So with that, here is my interview with Tom Suddath. And David Bender of Reed Smith. Hope you enjoy it.
DOJ’s Focus Initiative Explained
Tom HagyTom Suddath. David Bender, thanks for joining me on the Emerging Litigation Podcast today. I appreciate you taking the time. Um Tom, we're, you know, I've explained the FDA a bit in my intro, but today we're talking about something called Focus. Uh can you give us a little bit of background on what that is first? Sure, Tom.
Tom SuddathUh and thank you. Thank you for having us here. It's good to be here. Um, so the Focus Initiative was uh an initiative um announced by the Department of Justice at the end of April of 2026. Uh it's an acronym that stands for the Broad Oversight Through Careful Use of Statistics. And the bottom line is it's an effort by DOJ to try to establish some rules of the road or guardrails for the use of data mining in connection with false transact cases. Um, data mining uh in false transact cases has been around for a while. DOJ has used it primarily through the use of non-public information. But what we're seeing now is an upsurge in cases brought by uh whistleblowers, data miners, who are not typically insiders with insider information, which is what we're typically seeing in these cases. Instead, they're uh folks who are collecting publicly available data, analyzing it, and then going to the government uh with the PTAM case, uh saying that they they think they found indicia of fraud and asking DOJ to investigate and hopefully uh intermediate case.
Tom HagySo they're kind of like data data fraud hunters, is that is that the right way to look at it?
Tom SuddathYeah, it it is. What they're doing is uh they're using the uh what we're seeing is increasingly powerful and sophisticated AI analytic tools um to analyze uh publicly available data uh and then going to the government saying that we we we've we found uh evidence of fraud. Uh primarily it's what we're seeing is a big uptick in the healthcare fraud space because there's a lot of money there and there's a lot of statistics and a lot of publicly available information. But yeah, basically they're yeah, they're data miners who are you know hunting for fraud. Gotcha.
Tom HagyOkay. And um so what what is what is driving this? Is it the availability of data, the as you said, the AI analytics or the economics of litigation? What would you say is driving this?
Tom SuddathI think it's all three, uh, Tom. You know, that there's uh you know, healthcare remains a top priority for Department of Justice, healthcare fraud, that they continue to be committed to investigating, uh prosecuting those cases. Uh it's yeah, it I don't see that changing anytime soon. Um and it's the availability of uh a lot of data out there, uh information that uh had previously not been publicly available, it's now publicly available. And then also it's the increasingly powerful um and sophisticated AI tools where they're running algorithms, they're they're testing thesis, and then uh coming to the government and saying that we believe we found some uh evidence of uh fraud and asking government to take a look at it and intervene if possible.
Tom HagyOkay. David, do you have anything to add to that?
David BenderI think Tom, the other thing I would add to that is I know in the introduction you outlined some of the unique aspects of the False Claims Act. And one of them is that when you have a whistleblower or a relater under the False Claims Act who initiates a False Claims Act lawsuit, they stand to receive a portion of the ultimate recovery. And so in this particular instance, there's a financial incentive for data miners to bring these cases to DOJ's attention, um, with the idea being that it's mutually beneficial. It's mutually beneficial for DOJ to prosecute alleged fraud and abuse and waste. And it's also mutually it's also beneficial to the relator, or in this case the data miner, to bring those cases to DOJ's attention and stand to benefit financially as well. Okay.
Tom HagyI don't know why I'm laughing, other than um as kind of a freelance uh free agent out here. I'm always looking for new uh revenue opportunities, so maybe this would be a side gig for me. That's not what I'm gonna do at all, but moving
Why Healthcare Is Ground Zero
Tom Hagyon. So uh let's move on. You mentioned obviously healthcare, we're here to talk about that too. Why is healthcare uh ground zero? It pr I mean it produces enormous amounts of billing and reimbursement data, obviously. So it has has it become the proving ground for these data-driven SCA enforcement actions?
Tom SuddathI I I think it's certainly uh one of the proving grounds. You know, we've also seen a lot of these cases uh brought under the uh uh Payment Protection Uh Act in those cases. Uh but you know, as those cases wind through the system, yeah, health care fraud is yeah has staying power. You know, it it's going to um I think what we're gonna see is increasing use of this uh in health care fraud cases. Health yeah, government subsidies of health care uh is not going away. Um there's just in there's just so much money uh involved here. And so, you know, it's a you know it's a potentially loop as David Fender said, you know, it's a potentially lucrative ground for people who are not insiders. Um these are people who have uh are just mining the data and running algorithms and you know coming back with information they believe uh shows some type of reliable correlation uh between the statistics and some indicty of fraud.
Tom HagyOkay.
David BenderThe other thing, Tom, is that you know, under the under the False Claims Act, there's also a uh there are statutory per claim penalties. And in the healthcare space, um that arena is conducive to very, very high numbers of claims that are submitted to the government. Think of Medicare and Medicaid, for example, when you go to a doctor and they and they submit a bill for your for your um care, we're talking about over the course of a year or two years or three years for a health system, you could be talking about thousands or even millions of claims. And so under the FCA, given there are uh there's availability for per claim penalties, what we see is that there are quite a few FCA cases in the healthcare space, and that's one reason. There's a lot of money at stake, not just the damages, but there are a lot of claims, and a lot of claims means a lot of penalties.
Tom HagyWell, let's hope we continue to have uh health care. Okay, little side jab for a little side jab from a senior citizen.
Anomaly Versus Fraud Comes Down To Intent
Tom HagyUm how how do you distinguish between evidence of fraud and like innocent statistical anomalies?
Tom SuddathI mean, typically what what how you uh distinguish between the two is you have an insider who who um identifies information. They, you know, their insider information is buttressed with statistical information. Um but that's not what's what we're seeing here. You know, what we're seeing here in these this new generation of cases are cases brought uh not by insiders, not with people who have inside information, um, but in but cases that are brought based upon data analytics. Of course, there are some cases where that that is supplemented with some insider information. Um but I mean what what courts generally uh require is that there be both uh indicia of fraud, but also and falsity, uh, but also that the the fraudulent, the allegedly fraudulent claims were claims that were submitted with Ciencia, with with knowledge uh that it was improper. Um what what we're seeing with these data mining cases is that they're they're trying to bring the cases based upon this driven by the statistics and the the uh the through their analysis, they've come up with what they believe to be uh predictive and reasonably reliable correlation between the the the claims and then the uh yeah, the falsity and the sienter.
Tom HagyOkay. David, anything to add to that?
David BenderI I echo what Tom uh mentioned there. I think to me, the biggest difference between um an innocent error and the makings of a of a of a provable false claims at case is sienter. The the idea that the defendant um knowingly submitted claims that were in excess of the amount to which they were entitled under the law. That sienter or knowing aspect of the case is really what separates um an overpayment from fraud.
Guardrails For Data Miner Cases
Tom HagyI guess the next one is is kind of obvious. You know, DOJ said it wants analytical rigor and legal legally sufficient allegations. So what what problem is DOJ trying to solve with focus?
Tom SuddathIt's the you know the onslaught of these cases, Tom, in a nutshell. Um yeah data analytics has been around for a while. Governments used it um in a lot of their cases going back a number of years. Uh what you know, DOJ is no, you know, this is not breaking news to anybody, but you know, they're you know their their staff is down. Um the people who are on the uh on the front line uh addressing these issues have a lot on their plate. Um and so I think what DOJ is trying to do here is establish um is to try to uh tell the data miners, look, if you're gonna come to us with these cases, here's what we expect. Um and we will prioritize those cases that we believe have been um properly analyzed and uh analyzed and presented to us uh with a understanding of what the legal requirements are. Um and so I I really think that this is uh an effort by DOJ to try to establish some um uh an ability to try to winnow through um the the you know the number of false claims at cases that they're getting. That they're you you've seen the statistics that they're just yeah, the number of false claims that cases in 2026, you know, they're being filed at a record pace. And that coupled with the fact that DOJ ha has a smaller staff to deal with these, I I think it just yeah, this is an effort by DOJ to try to uh provide some guidance um on the cases they're gonna prioritize.
Tom HagyYeah, it must be crazy times at DOJ right now, among other agencies. Uh uh David, did you have anything to add to that?
David BenderOne thing I would add is that, you know, DioJ is also acutely aware of one of the main hurdles in an FCA case, which is what's known as um Rule 9B under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So under Rule 9B, a party who alleges fraud has to plead fraud with what's known as heightened particularity. Uh it's an elevated standard where a plaintiff alleging fraud really has to plead specifics on the who, what, where, when, why, how of the fraud. It's a higher bar than in an ordinary non-fraud civil case. And so DOJ understands that typically one of the first lines of defense for an FCA defendant is to move to dismiss the case on the posture that the relator has failed to satisfy that Rule 9B bar. If you have data miners who are standing in the shoes of the role of relator who maybe have a theory but don't really understand the case and aren't able to articulate the specifics of it in the complaint, DOJ understands that that's the type of case that defendants are going to have a higher success rate when they move to dismiss. So DOJ really wants to kind of vet these cases and know that data miners that bring the cases to their attention really understand the cases and are able to clear that Rule 90 bar by drafting the complaint that would be likely to pass.
What Makes A Case Legally Strong
Tom HagyOkay. Well, when you're talking about the complaint improving case, can you talk a bit about um the kind of evidence that is required for a strong case?
Tom SuddathSure. I mean, I I I think the type of evidence that typically a DOJ looks for, as I've mentioned before, it's um insider information. It's um you know, the the cases that don't pass muster are cases where there's just the relator tries to establish if there's correlation, there must be causation. Correlation does not equate to causation. Um what DOJ is saying here though is if there's a reasonable or reliable uh basis for the correlation, that may be, you know, that that may be enough uh for them to uh pick up on this, pick up on these cases, so long as that analysis is also tethered or tied to a legal analysis to to uh identify issues such as Center's, issues such as falsity. But typically what they look for is, as we mentioned before, the insider information, the information that uh that suggests that what is being presented to DOJ, these are not just mistakes, these are not just sort of innocent one-off filling irregularities, but this is a pattern and a practice um by defendants to overbill um Medicare.
David BenderI think that's a really important point, Tom, because we if we step away for a moment, you step away from the data mining case. You know, in your garden variety false claims that case that's predicated on a whistleblower who's a a c a company insider, if you will. They're able to tell DOJ the story. They're able to tell DOJ not just what was allegedly causing an overpayment, but also the why. The idea that, hey, you know, this was an initiative. This was a corporate-wide scheme. In data mining cases, it's tougher to do that. It's tougher to understand why folks within the company did what they did. It's harder to make out that story. So it becomes all the more important for VOJ to be able to find patterns within the data because they have to sort of overcome what um is ultimately a bit of a hurdle, which is um not having a company insider who can explain how things were really happening boots
AI Supercharges Claims And Complaints
David Benderon the ground.
Tom HagyGotcha. So you can't do a podcast on an emerging issue these days without talking about artificial intelligence. And and so uh it sounds like that technology is is becoming more and more of a powerful tool in in a lot of ways. But so we're looking at its use in detecting fraud, fraud. So can you talk about that? How what's the influence of is uh is AI making these kinds of claims and this kind of analysis uh stronger and more possible?
Tom SuddathYeah, Tom, I don't think there's any question, but that this is um fueled in significant ways by AI. Um and I I think that's you know what what you're seeing is not only use of AI in doing data analytics, but also using AI to help craft complaints. Um I think that's yeah, that that is something that is contributing significantly to the uptick of false clients that cases. Um you know that the AI is being used to not only do the data analytics, but then once you have those data analytics, it's being used to help craft complaints. Um and so it's you know whereas before um putting together a false client set case may require a lot of uh hours in in going through information, sifting through information before you present it to DOJ, um AI just cuts down on on that workload significantly, not only just collection of the information, but then using that information, plugging it into a complaint. And I think that's yeah, uh in my mind, I don't think there's you know much debate that what's what's happening here is being driven significantly through AI, which is you know, it it can be a powerful tool, but it can also be, you know, a double-edged sword.
Tom HagyThat's for sure. Mr. David, any comment on that?
David BenderUh picking up on the double-edged sword theme, you know, typically when a when a data mining relator brings the case, they're going to try to put forth their best examples of what they would deem to be thought. They're going to try to put those in their complaint. But if the case moves on to discovery, you know, AI can also be a really powerful tool for defendants. Um, one of the things that defendants can use AI for when it comes to the data is really sifting apart the examples that were showcased in the complaint from maybe counterexamples that are reflected in the data. That's often one of the one of the best ways to take some of the air out of a plaintiff's balloon and explaining that you know there might be a difference between uh a one-off overpayment and a whole swath of thing on the other side that demonstrates a pattern of compliance.
Tom HagyOkay. Yeah. And I was I always on my soapbox about AI, because I use it quite a bit in my business, but um and lawyers certainly are learning this too. And lawyers have a lot more, um, there are a lot more traps, I think, for lawyers in you in the use of AI that I don't have to have. Like if you're using chat and you're entering confidential information into the chat, is that breaking attorney client privilege or whatever? Are you sharing work product? But I don't practice law, so I thank God for a lot of people, but I don't have to worry about that. The um the other thing though is is oh my gosh, the human involvement. You talk about uh David, you know, writing complaints and stuff and uh law firms. Are learning the hard way, aren't they? That you must have a human overlooking things. And my my whole thing is treat AI like it's uh like it's a really smart, really fast junior associate uh with you with you. Um that's my uh my my soapbox for now. I I do ask AI how why is it so good? And I it's it's be it's it's getting weird that it even mentions my wife to me now when I'm talking about things. And it's it mentioned it makes fun of me when she talks to it, which is just it's kind of amusing, but uh also terrifying. But I've asked AI, like, how do you do this? How are how is it you're able to give me back answers? And I asked complicated questions. It said, well, you know, Tom, you have to think, you know, you've got one brain. I've got a multitude of brains all working at the same time uh on massive amounts of data, and I'm learning all the time. So it's like, yeah, I just told it never to uh never to you know come after me.
David BenderUm, are requiring um you know changes court to court, but some courts are now requiring certifications from counsel as to whether they did or did not actually use AI in the course of blocking a um submission to the court.
Tom HagyYeah, I feel like I feel like that's that will end up being the wrong question. I don't know if you agree or not, but the question will be uh because in my mind the lawyer owns it no matter how it's done. So, you know, are you certifying that you are responsible for this and you have checked it? You know, that kind of a thing. But um because it's uh yeah, but I I see what you're what you're saying. You because there are too many instances where uh firms, I don't know, I would just be horribly embarrassed if I were a firm and I went to uh went to an appeal or a motion or something with with uh cases that didn't exist. And um I've seen it do it, uh, but when you push back on it, because I was looking once for an antitrust case, and um it was giving me cases that I just didn't that just didn't exist. And I I gave them to a really good paralegal and he said, Well, and he was being kind to the AI. He said, Well, maybe it's maybe it's in some small county in western Texas. I'm like, a big antitrust case wouldn't wouldn't be there. But so man, you gotta be careful. One time it was it said, uh, I said, I don't believe this this part that you just gave me is real. It said, Oh, I thought you wanted me to just make up placeholders for that you could replace with real with facts later. I'm like, okay, AI, never, ever do that. And it's learning. Uh so it's it's it's a crazy time. But um, well, anyway, I wanted to just just kind of wrap
Will DOJ Dismiss More Qui Tam Suits
Tom Hagyup. Um so uh no, I think we've you know, we've so we've talked about AI. Do you would you say, are you optimistic about the focus program? Do you think uh you know a few years from now we're gonna say, yeah, that was a good thing?
Tom SuddathSo I I I think that the uh I think it's too early to tell time I'll give you a clear answer. We're only three months into it. Um I I think that um yeah, DOJ has put down, you know, a pretty clear marker here of what their expectations are. Um and I you know I I think that part of what we may be seeing here is laying the groundwork for DOJ to exercise more of its power to dismiss meritless TJM cases. Um because you know, e even if a um TJM case that's driven by AI, driven by data analytics, can can be filed. Uh and perhaps it will survive a motion to dismiss, maybe not. But these are tremendously expensive um cases to litigate. Now, and it's expensive and time consuming for the defense, but it's also tremendously time consuming also for the uh for DOJ. Uh who, yeah, as we talked about before, you know, if they're doing trying to do more with less. You know, they're getting more of these cases filed, they have less personnel to handle them, to sort of separate the weak from the cash. So I what I'm gonna be interested in is um you know seeing whether this may ultimately see uh you know, be an effort by DOJ to kind of flex its dismissal power, which it has, and it's signaled a an increased willingness to use that in the right cases. But if you know if the flood of these cases continues to be filed at DOJ unabated and if the uh data miners don't take the focus initiative seriously, I I think what we're gonna see is you know DOJ increasingly considering the exercise of its uh power to just dismiss these cases.
David BenderOkay. David? I completely agree, and I would say um even short of dismissal, I think we'll see DOJ declining to intervene in cases that they don't feel um uh as comfortable have been fully vetted by data miners who understand um some of the unusual aspects of prosecuting the false. Okay.
Tom HagyYeah, and you know, in a larger view, you you you both are probably aware that there are companies now that are using AI generally to find uh actionable cases or potentially actionable uh cases in all sorts of areas from personal injury to antitrust and all kinds of things. So um it's a it's a it's a wild time for sure. Look, is there anything else you wanted to say about it?
Using Data Mining For Compliance Defense
Tom HagyBecause you've answered my questions beautifully. So uh anything else?
Tom SuddathI guess Tom, you know, the the one uh yeah, data mining is yeah, it can be a powerful tool for uh the relators. Um but also I I think you know it can be a powerful tool for companies from a compliance perspective. And yeah, we we haven't touched much on sort of the use of this in compliance, but I think what you're gonna see is companies increasingly using AI and data, um data mining to identify, try to get out ahead of the curve and and identify potentially problematic crisis. Um, so that they you know, they they know about it and they can take corrective action before you know it hits the phase.
Tom HagyThat's really good. That's a really good point. Rather than having somebody use AI and and whistleblow on on your conduct, apply it to yourself first. That's a that's a that's an interesting uh that's great advice, I think. Not that you're giving legal advice. Nothing here is legal advice. That I'm giving legal advice. No, no, and nothing here establishes an attorney client relationship. David, anything that you wanted to add on?
David BenderYeah, I I I agree with Tom, and I was just going to add that, you know, even in in that particular instance, if someone does blow the whistle, the corrective action that the uh defendant engaged in is is a fantastic fact if and when the case goes um to discovery. Because defense counsel can then argue that that corrective action really inhibits the plaintiff's ability to demonstrate fraud. In other words, demonstrate the Center or the knowing um the knowing intent to um submit a false claim.
Why The Guests Chose This Work
Tom HagyOkay. And just I I always like to ask attorneys because um I'm surprised sometimes at the answers I get, but how did you guys end up here um doing this? Is this when you were uh in elementary school, were you thinking, you know, that Lincoln Law. Um uh Tom, what uh what about you? How did you end up in this?
Tom SuddathSo I was uh uh I was an American studies major, uh, and I knew there wasn't much of a you know lucrative future doing that. So I guess when I was, you know, took a year off and and was a ski bum, I decided I'd really that was not also not a uh not a road to riches. Really? Yes. So it was fun, but it wasn't really a road to riches. So um I went to law school and yeah, all kidney side, I I did uh I thought that I wanted to become a class and become a classic then let me to do the defense work. Yeah. Okay. It's sort of been an evolution into healthcare quad space.
Tom HagyWell, if you ever seen me you've if you ever saw me ski, you would definitely know that wouldn't have been a future for me. I I hit a certain level and and I never got past it. I was always like once in a while going down the mountain, and all of a sudden I am f I am parallel to the earth. I am flying with one ski on and the other one is I uh it doesn't end well usually. No, no, they well, yeah, yeah. What do they call that? A yard sale? I was in many, uh was in many of those. Uh David, what about you?
David BenderSimilar to Todd. I guess for me it wasn't being a ski bum, but once I realized that the the dream of being on the PGA tour as a golfer was was just that a a dream and not a reality. Uh I came back to Earth and um, you know, I I went to law school. But no, from the time I was a kid, I I've always had an advocate's heart. Um I went through many years where I wanted to be a doctor. And in the end, I I decided that instead of being a scientist, I would like to sort of get up to speed with the science, but then use the advocacy to um uh be someone who who defends healthcare clients. And so that's how I got here today. Okay.
Tom HagyYeah. Golf is something I've never really got into uh although as I've got once once I had teenage daughters, and now that I've been now that I've been working delightfully with my wife, um, we are together 24-7 or even longer. Um no, it's wonderful. She's great. And I wouldn't uh she's very easygoing, but there are times when I think, you know what, maybe I should golf. Maybe I should go or just get one club and stand on the course. Are you watching that show, the uh The Hawk?
David BenderI am, I am. But you know what they say about golf? It is a four-letter word, so it's great.
Tom HagyOkay, good. Well, I don't know, maybe I'll try fishing. All right, well, guys, very thank you very much. This is really informative. It's obviously an it uh an interesting and important area. So uh let's check back. Uh maybe we'll check back next year and see how things are going. So thank you guys very much. Thanks, Tom. Tom, it was a pleasure. Okay. All right, guys. If you could uh nice job. Um, I I just love doing this podcast. I just love uh I love law. Uh I and I don't know why, but I do. It's uh maybe I said this to you, Tom, before that to me it's like a philosophical argument a lot of times that ends up but has real world consequences at the end, you know.
Tom SuddathTom, let me ask you the question. How'd you get into
Tom’s Path Into Legal Media
Tom Suddaththis?
Tom HagyOh, yes. Well, um I uh loved writing, and I didn't even know how much I loved it until I got to college. And there's one one professor that said, Oh, why don't you take advanced expository writing? I'm like, what is that? And um what time is the class? And it was eight o'clock, eight a.m. on Monday. And I'm not gonna kid you guys, I was not a very serious young man, and I was not a very good student. So I'm like, so I think, yeah. Um, but so I love writing and I loved law. My grandfather was a lawyer, my uncle was a lawyer, my sister was a lawyer, my dad wasn't a lawyer, but he dealt a lot with uh labor relations law in his is he was head of industrial relations at a at a metals plant, and um so I was exposed to it and found it interesting. And and then I went to my high school uh counselor and I said, Oh, I think I want to be a lawyer. He said, Have you thought of the trades? Um I was so mad at him, and then later on I'm like, Yeah, yeah, he was right. Uh but just to be clear, there is nothing wrong with the trades. It's honorable work and very smart people working them. That said, I didn't have the math chops. But anyway, I got into the writing, started doing a lot of writing uh and loved law, moved to Philadelphia, and I interviewed for a job as a junior uh editor at a small startup legal publisher who was paid $8,500 a year with no benefits. And um, I thought that sounds perfect. And so, but but it was great because I was sitting next to two grizzled journalists. They were old, they were 41 and 45, and uh I was 23. And uh man, I learned so much from them. And then, but every day, guys, I was reading opinions, talking to lawyers like I'm doing right now, um, and then having to write about cases. And so I don't know, I was in some form of law school, I think, for 10, 15 years, and that's how I I got into it. So then I started my own business, and well, we we I was out of business, we sold it, and then I started my own. And so now with podcasting, it's more like this is like the best of all the stuff I used to do. Yeah, to talk to guys and learn about law.
Tom SuddathWell, you're uh you know, that background comes through, Tom, uh, because your questions are yeah, that they're solid questions, that they're you know you you tee up the issue well for the you know for your audience and the people who are on the receiving end. So um thanks. No, it's it's it's yeah, it's it's like I looked at your questions. I was like, this guy's done some, you know, he's done his homework.
Tom HagyOh yeah. Well, thank you, thank you. Well, I do, I do. And part of it is because I am curious about law, I just really am. And uh and so looking at the political and electoral landscape and everything, I'm just um I'm just like I'm one of those guys that ends up defending lawyers. That uh you can say what you want about lawyers. There's there's like dirt bags in every profession, but the ones I encounter are like serious guys, and if you uh have an issue, you want them. And um, and we're seeing that now as law firms are being challenged and judges are being challenged. Um it's more important than ever. So all right. Well, good luck uh golfing or skiing. I don't have to talk to ski anymore. Yeah, I do. Good for you, man. We'll keep it up. Well, thanks, guys. The Emerging Litigation Podcast is a production of Critical Legal Content, which is part of the awesome brand HB Litigation. We create content that is critical on legal topics for law firms and legal service providers. That kind of content can be blogs, papers, podcasts, webinars and we have a good time doing it .