H. Vincent McKnight Jr.

H. Vincent McKnight Jr.
H. Vincent McKnight Jr.
DC Managing Partner

(202) 499-5211

Email Vince

View on LinkedIn

As Co-Chair of the Firm’s whistleblower practice, Mr. McKnight represents whistleblowers in sealed and unsealed False Claims Act/Qui Tam suits under investigation by the government.

Meet DC Managing Partner H. Vincent McKnight Jr.

Meet DC Managing Partner H. Vincent McKnight Jr.

I could not be happier with my Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP experience. Confronting racial discrimination in the workplace was the hardest decision I've made in my 20+ year career. Vincent McKnight understood my situation immediately and helped me to clearly understand the pros and cons of my options. David Sanford got my former employer's full attention and confidentially resolved my employment matter in a very thorough, professional and efficient manner. He was steady throughout the entire process and it was extremely reassuring to see him fight for me. Great attorneys who are also excellent at listening to the client. M.B., Former Client

We retained Mr. McKnight to represent us in a qui tam matter against one of our competitors that we suspected was violating the federal government contracting guidelines and certifications. The efficiency with which our claim was filed, heard and settled exceeded our expectations and we wouldn’t hesitate to utilize his expertise if the need ever arose again. Malcolm Wilson, Perry & Wilson, Inc.

I can attest to Vince McKnight’s skills as a lawyer after a particularly difficult situation in my workplace arose. Who am I going to call when facing trouble? I’m calling Vince and his firm. Period. Denise Slaughter, Washington, DC

We retained Vince McKnight several years ago in a Qui Tam matter against a company that was illegally selling lamps and furniture from China to the United States Government. He explained the process and was personally available and attentive throughout the course of the action. We had a successful outcome which was important to our company, and to other companies, like mine, that followed the government contract guidelines. Louis M Scutellaro, President, Mario Industries

When I suffered a grievous injury, I turned to Vincent McKnight who represented me in this complex malpractice matter which was resolved during the early phases of discovery. Mr. McKnight’s compassionate understanding of my injuries and their psychological impact, combined with his brilliantly strategic and skillful litigation expertise, resulted in a great outcome. Patricia Cornwell Johnson, Esquire

Unwavering and dedicated to achieving the best results for his clients, Vince McKnight has broad experience in representing companies and individuals. He skillfully moved the parties to resolution in a highly sensitive matter to my satisfaction. As a practicing attorney, I appreciated his counsel, quick action and thoroughness. Angela Ciccolo, Esquire

Vincent “Vince” McKnight, Jr., is the Managing Partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp’s Washington, D.C., office and Co-Chair of the firm’s Whistleblower Practice. He also represents clients in employment discrimination and wrongful discharge cases.

Vince represents whistleblowers in sealed and unsealed False Claims Act/qui tam suits under investigation by the United States and other governmental stakeholders. He has achieved significant success in such cases, including the representation of whistleblowers in a series of actions alleging that office products companies (Staples, Office Depot) were illegally selling products from non-compliant countries such as China to the U.S. government in violation of the Trade Agreements Act and General Services Administration (GSA) policies. He also served as co-counsel in United States ex rel Cox v. Smith & Newpew, alleging unlawful sales of medical devices under government contracts arising from the manufacturer’s violations of the Trade Agreements Act.

Vince was co-lead counsel for a whistleblower who was the Government Contracting Director for Network Appliance (NetApp) in a matter that resulted in the then-largest GSA procurement fraud settlement in history. NetApp overcharged the government in violation of the GSA “Best Price” Clause, and ultimately settled for approximately $128M.Vince has served as faculty at the ABA’s  Annual National Institute on the False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement and he has participated as a panelist at conferences hosted by Taxpayers Against Fraud and the Practicing Lawyers Institute focusing on issues under the False Claims Act. In addition, he co-authored “Causes of Action by Employee for Retaliation and Reprisal Pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 USC Section 3730 (h)” in Causes of Action 2d 217, Section 2 (West 2003). Vince is renowned for arguing and winning a case in which the DC Court of Appeals first departed from the employment-at-will doctrine—the assumption that employment is for an indefinite amount of time and may be terminated at any time—in the District of Columbia.  In the Summer of 2018, Vince was on the SHS trial team that obtained a $1.25M verdict against Columbia University on behalf of Professor Enrichetta Ravina.

Vince has consistently received a rating of “AV” by Martindale-Hubbell and was selected as one of the organization’s “Best Lawyers in America”  He has also been honored as a “Top Lawyer in Maryland” by the Legal Network and as “top DC Lawyer” in Super Lawyers.

Education

  • J.D., University of Pennsylvania School of Law 1978
  • B.A., Brown University 1975

Clerkship

  • Honorable William C. Pryor in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia, 1980
  • Maryland, 2009

Memberships

  • Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund Conference Committee (2017, 2018)

United States ex rel. Cox v. Smith & Nephew (W.D. Tenn.) – $11 Million Settlement

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP won a $11.3 million qui tam settlement against Smith & Nephew one of the world’s largest medical device manufacturers. The whistleblower, represented by the firm and the U.S. Department of Justice, alleged that Smith & Nephew violated the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) and the False Claims Act by selling products to the Government that were manufactured in countries with which the United States is not a trading partner, under contracts governed by the TAA.

Read More

United States ex rel. Sherwin v. Office Depot (Los Angeles County Superior Court) – $68 Million Settlement

The whistleblower, represented by Altomease Kennedy and California co-counsels, alleged that Office Depot violated the California False Claims Act by overcharging numerous governmental entities, including the city and county of Los Angeles, for office and classroom supplies, and failing to offer them the company’s “best price.” The city of Los Angeles received the largest settlement allocation of more than $11 million.

Read More

United States ex rel. Cox Et Al v. Medtronic (D. Minn.) – $23.5 Million Settlement

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP won a more than $4.4 million qui tam settlement against Medtronic, Inc., one of the world’s largest medical device manufacturers. The whistleblower, represented by the firm and the U.S. Department of Justice, alleged that Medtronic violated the Trade Agreements Act (“TAA”) and the False Claims Act by selling products to the Government that were manufactured in countries with which the United States is not a trading partner, under contracts governed by the TAA.

Read More

Columbia University Sexual Harassment Case – $1.25 Jury Verdict

The complaint provides extensive details regarding how the senior leadership of Columbia – including the Provost of the University and the Dean of Columbia Business School – allowed one of Columbia’s senior, tenured professors to sexually harass and obstruct the work of a female junior faculty member, plaintiff Enrichetta Ravina. Read More

Read More
  • October 3 – 5, 2018, Moderator
    Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund (TAFEF) 2018 Conference and Awards
  • June 14, 2018, Panelist
    American Bar Association 2018 National Institute on the Civil False Claims Act and Qui Tam Enforcement, Procurement Fraud
  • February 28, 2018, Panelist
    Federal Bar Association Qui Tam Conference, Strategic Use of Pre-Trial Motions
  • Causes of Action by Employee Retaliation and Reprisal Pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 USC Section 3730 (j). Causes of Action 2d 217, Section 2, West  2003. Co-author.
  • Biomechanics of VDT Carpal Tunnel Cases. Trial. June 1991.

Statistical evidence is solid proof of fraud!

In United States ex rel. Martin v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142660 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2014)., a federal district court agreed with the United States Government that statistical evidence could be used to prove the nature and extent of the harm in False Claims Act matter. It seems […]

Read More
Back to Top