What Determines the Size of a Whistleblower’s Share
Key Takeaways: Under the Illinois False Claims Act, a whistleblower’s reward is generally a percentage of what the State actually recovers, not a fixed bounty. Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d), the relator may generally receive 15% to 25% when the State intervenes and 25% to 30% when the relator pursues the case alone. Within those ranges, courts may look at how much the relator contributed, whether the information was original or already public, and whether the relator took part in the fraud. A case based mainly on public disclosures is generally capped at 10%, a relator who planned and started the violation may get a reduced share, and a relator convicted for their role generally gets nothing. The court generally orders the defendant to pay reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs separately, so they typically don’t reduce the relator’s share. The federal False Claims Act uses parallel ranges under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).
Under the Illinois False Claims Act, a whistleblower’s reward is generally a percentage of the money the State actually recovers. Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d), the range depends mainly on whether the State intervenes. Within those ranges, the court may consider the whistleblower’s contribution, whether the case rests on public information, and whether the whistleblower played any part in the fraud. The federal False Claims Act uses a parallel structure under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), which may matter in federal cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois.
If you have evidence that your employer or a government contractor submitted false claims, the way you build and present your case can affect your share. Leonard Trial Lawyers offers confidential, free consultations to insiders weighing their options. Call 312-380-6559 or contact us now to talk through your situation privately.
The Relator’s Role in a Qui Tam Case
A whistleblower who files a qui tam lawsuit is formally called a "relator." The relator sues on behalf of the government and may share in what the government recovers. You can review how courts and statutes use the legal term "relator" in federal materials. The right to a share comes from filing the qui tam action, not from simply sending a tip to an agency.
In Illinois, these claims arise under the Illinois False Claims Act, 740 ILCS 175/1 et seq. The relator files the complaint under seal for at least 60 days, which the court can extend for good cause, so the State can investigate before deciding whether to intervene. Our overview of the 60-day seal period explains this confidential stage. The seal can protect a whistleblower who still works for the company, but it does not guarantee their identity will stay secret for good.
How State Intervention Changes the Relator’s Reward
The intervention decision is often the biggest factor in a relator’s reward. It sets the percentage range the court works within and shapes how much work the relator must carry.
When the State Intervenes
Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1), a relator in an intervened case generally receives at least 15% and no more than 25% of the proceeds of the action or settlement. Where the award falls depends on how much the relator substantially contributed to prosecuting the case. A relator who provides detailed documents and helps investigators understand the scheme may have a stronger argument for the upper end. A relator whose role ended once the complaint was filed may receive less.
When the State Declines
If the State does not intervene and the relator goes forward alone, 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(2) calls for the court to award an amount it decides is reasonable, which must be at least 25% and no more than 30% of the proceeds. The higher range reflects the greater risk and work the relator takes on. A declination does not necessarily mean the claim lacks merit, since the State may decline because of limited resources or other priorities. Still, a relator pursuing a case alone needs counsel ready to handle discovery, motions, and trial.
| Scenario | Illinois Statute | Relator Share Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| State intervenes | 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1) | 15% to 25% |
| State declines; relator proceeds | 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(2) | 25% to 30% |
| Case based mainly on public information | 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1) | Up to 10% |
| Relator convicted for role in violation | 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(3) | No share |
Factors Courts Weigh in Setting the Award
No single formula sets an exact percentage, so courts generally look at the relator’s contribution and the facts of the case. In practice, these points often matter:
- How important and specific the relator’s information was
- Whether the evidence was original or drawn from public sources
- How much the relator helped move the investigation and lawsuit forward
- Whether the relator planned, started, or took part in the misconduct
- How the case ended, by judgment or settlement
Federal practice follows a similar approach under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d). The Department of Justice uses internal relator share guidelines with similar contribution factors. These factors are guidance and do not guarantee any result.
💡 Pro Tip: Keep a private, dated record of each time you meet with investigators or provide documents after filing. That record can help show your contribution when the parties negotiate or the court decides your share.
Exceptions That Can Reduce or Eliminate a Share
Several statutory exceptions can push a relator’s recovery well below the standard ranges.
Cases Based on Public Information
Under the second sentence of 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1), if the court finds the case is based mainly on disclosures of specific information, other than information provided by the relator, from listed public sources, the court may award what it considers appropriate but no more than 10% of the proceeds. The listed sources include criminal, civil, or administrative hearings, legislative or Auditor General reports, audits, investigations, and news media. Separately, the public disclosure bar in 740 ILCS 175/4(e)(4) can lead to dismissal unless the relator qualifies as an original source. Firsthand, nonpublic evidence generally strengthens a relator’s position.
Relators Who Took Part in the Fraud
Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(3), if the court finds the relator planned and started the violation, the court may reduce the share as it considers appropriate. The court must dismiss a relator convicted of criminal conduct arising from his or her role in the violation, and that relator gets no share. Dismissal does not stop the State from continuing the case. If you have concerns about your own involvement, discuss them confidentially with counsel before filing.
The Risk of Paying the Defendant’s Costs
In declined cases, 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(4) allows the court to order the relator to pay the defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses under narrow conditions. This applies only if the State did not intervene, the defendant wins, and the court finds the claim was clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious, or brought mainly to harass. Truthful, verifiable evidence is often the best protection against this risk.
Where the Rest of the Money Goes
The relator’s percentage is only one part of how a recovery is divided. Under 740 ILCS 175/8(a), money recovered by judgment or settlement generally goes into the State Whistleblower Reward and Protection Fund, held outside the State Treasury with the State Treasurer as custodian. Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1) and (2), the court may also award amounts to any government entity or program the defendant harmed.
Expenses Paid on Top of the Relator’s Award
The court generally orders the defendant to pay reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs separately from the relator’s percentage share. Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(1) and (2), this applies whether or not the State intervenes, but only when there is a recovery. Because the defendant pays these amounts, they typically do not reduce the relator’s share. However, a relator may still owe counsel under their own fee agreement, such as a contingency fee. In intervened cases, the State may also recover the Attorney General’s reasonable expenses, fees, and costs from the defendant.
This is part of why trial readiness matters. A defendant facing a relator whose counsel is ready to try the case may view its total exposure differently. Leonard Trial Lawyers brings more than 30 years of trial experience to high-stakes matters and takes cases selectively so each client gets personal attention. A qui tam relator reward lawyer can assess how intervention, public disclosure, and your role may affect your share.
💡 Pro Tip: Preserve evidence lawfully. Do not take privileged materials or patient data beyond what you are allowed to access. Ask counsel how to protect documents before you copy anything.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is the relator’s reward guaranteed if the case succeeds?
A share is generally available when there is a recovery, but its size is not fixed. The statutory ranges generally apply, subject to exceptions for public-information cases and for relators involved in the fraud. A relator convicted for his or her role gets nothing.
2. Do federal and Illinois relator share percentages differ?
The ranges are parallel. Both 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) and 740 ILCS 175/4(d) generally provide 15% to 25% with intervention and 25% to 30% without it, with similar 10% caps for public-information cases. Which law applies generally depends on whether the fraud targeted federal or State funds, and some cases, such as Medicaid fraud, involve both.
3. Do legal costs come out of my reward?
Under 740 ILCS 175/4(d), when there is a recovery, the court generally orders the defendant to pay reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. These amounts are separate from the relator’s percentage share, though your own fee agreement with counsel may still affect what you take home.
4. Can I still recover if the State declines to intervene?
Possibly. A relator may continue the case alone and, if successful, may receive 25% to 30% of the proceeds under 740 ILCS 175/4(d)(2). Declined cases need thorough preparation, and in narrow cases a relator may have to pay the defendant’s fees.
5. Does my job title affect my share?
The statute focuses on the relator’s contribution and conduct, not job title. Courts may look at how important the information is, the relator’s role in moving the case forward, and whether the relator planned and started the violation.
Protecting Your Evidence and Your Share
In Illinois, a whistleblower’s award generally turns on intervention, contribution, the source of the information, and the relator’s own conduct. The Illinois False Claims Act sets the ranges, and the court decides the exact percentage based on the facts unless the parties agree on it in a settlement. Careful evidence preservation and a truthful, well-documented complaint may put a relator on stronger footing, whether or not the State takes over the case.
If you are thinking about coming forward, you deserve counsel who handles your case with discretion and is ready to take it to trial. Leonard Trial Lawyers offers free, confidential consultations to whistleblowers in Chicago and throughout Illinois. Call 312-380-6559 or schedule your free consultation today.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every case is unique, and results may vary. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.
