“That’s our institutional role,” he said. “The Bankruptcy Code depends on voluntary disclosure, and when you find out there has not been voluntary disclosure, there needs to be a firm remedy.” He emphasized that he was speaking about the program’s mandate in general and not about its scrutiny of McKinsey.

Three of the bankruptcy judges who have heard Mr. Alix’s accusations have also said that the Justice Department’s prosecutors could investigate, “if so warranted.”

In all of the litigation, McKinsey has argued that Mr. Alix has sought to push McKinsey out of the market for corporate restructurings, which would put the firm he founded in 1981, AlixPartners, in a better competitive position.

Mr. Alix no longer works at AlixPartners, but holds about a third of its stock and sits on its board. (AlixPartners itself is not involved in the litigation.)

Mr. Alix’s complaints have centered on the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that professional firms get court approval before they can be hired to advise companies in bankruptcy. When they apply, they must provide a sworn affidavit of their “disinterestedness” and list all of their connections to other parties in the case. The requirements are meant to prevent hidden investments and sweetheart deals in bankruptcy, where billions of dollars worth of assets change hands.

Three years ago, Mr. Alix complained to the Justice Department that McKinsey had been leaving all the names of its connections out of its applications, making it impossible to check for conflicts of interest.

Last year, he filed the racketeering lawsuit, accusing McKinsey of running a pay-to-play scheme, steering law firms to its clients in need of restructuring if those firms in turn would make exclusive referrals to McKinsey. He said that was pushing AlixPartners out of the market for bankruptcy business, and that McKinsey was concealing its connections. McKinsey has denied wrongdoing.