Jake is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on the defense of professional liability, product liability and catastrophic injury lawsuits along with the representation of both sides in complex commercial matters.
Jake represents physicians, nurses, hospitals, allied health workers, insurance agents, real estate professionals and others in malpractice litigation. He regularly defends manufacturers and lessors of construction and agricultural equipment in large-exposure product liability and construction accident claims. Jake handles complex casualty matters including a substantial practice dealing with claims of sexual assault or the alleged failure to prevent it. Jake also handles commercial and real estate litigation including suits involving fraud and alleged fraudulent billing, business torts, breach of warranty, breach of contract, partnership dissolution and securities matters. Jake’s experience spans the courts of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and all phases of litigation up to and through trial and appeal.
Understanding litigation from the client’s perspective, employing an aggressive, creative and pragmatic approach to the case and being responsive to client needs are the cornerstones of Jake’s practice.
B.A., magna cum laude, 2006
Rutgers School of Law Camden
Temple University Beasley School of Law
L.L.M, in Trial Advocacy with honors 2017
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Philadelphia Bar Association
Temple American Inn of Court
Honors & Awards
Lawyer on the Fast Track (2016)
Pennsylvania Super Lawyers
Rising Star (2016-2020)
Prior to joining GGM Jake worked at a firm in central Pennsylvania where he had a varied practice. In this position he handled a significant criminal defense caseload trying multiple felony cases to verdict. He also handled a variety of civil matters on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants.
Jake is a zealous advocate for his clients and an ongoing student of the art of advocacy. To this end, in 2017, he graduated with honors from Temple University’s nationally ranked L.L.M. in trial advocacy program where he honed his trial and advocacy skills by working with top litigators from Philadelphia and around the country. Jake now serves as a guest judge and lecturer in the program.
Jake is committed to involvement in the legal community and in the community at large. He provides pro bono legal services through the Pennsylvania Innocence Project and has served as an intern on their board. He volunteers with the Committee of Seventy, is a member of the Temple American Inn of Court and is involved with the Philadelphia Bar Association. Jake authors articles on legal topics and has written for the Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly and other publications. Jake regularly speaks on legal topics of interest at ALFA and elsewhere. While practicing in Central Pennsylvania Mr. Lehman was co-chair of the Young Lawyers Division of the Lebanon County Bar Association.
Summary Judgment for Equipment Rental Company in Product Liability ActionMr. Lehman obtained a dismissal on behalf of his client, a national equipment rental company, in a product liability, negligence and breach of warranty action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. This dismissal came after the Court’s grant of a contested motion for summary judgment. Mr. Lehman was able to convince the Court to hold oral argument on his client’s motion, and at argument demonstrate that his client had no relationship to the product sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
High Six-Figure Settlement for Third-Party Logistics Provider in Breach of Contract and Construction Defect ActionMr. Lehman successfully represented the Plaintiff in a claim that a number of contractor defendants failed to meet their obligations and acted negligently in the design, sale and installation of a commercial racking system in Plaintiff’s warehouse. Despite the Defendants’ claims that the Plaintiff failed to disclose material information and that the cause of the damages was something other than the breach; after significant discovery, including depositions of all the defendants and their principals, Mr. Lehman achieved a substantial settlement for his client.
Defendant’s Verdict for Tractor Manufacturer after a Multi-week Wrongful Death Jury Trial in New JerseyPlaintiff claimed the product was defective in its design by failing to incorporate a rollover protective structure. The defense was able to prove that the product was both safe and useful, that plaintiff’s proposed “alternative design” destroyed the machine’s utility and made the product more dangerous, and that the true cause of the accident was the misuse of the product and the actions of the owner of the tractor.
Defendant’s Verdict for a Manufacturer of Agricultural Products after a Three-week Jury Trial in PhiladelphiaPlaintiff claimed the product was defective in its design and that this caused the accident. The defense was able to prove that the product was both safe and useful, that plaintiff’s proposed “alternative design” made the product more dangerous, and that the true cause of the accident was the misuse of plaintiff and the negligence of plaintiff’s employer.
Defendant’s Verdict for an Equipment Rental Company after Two-weeks of Trial in PhiladelphiaPlaintiff claimed the rental company was negligent by failing to ascertain where scaffolding rented to plaintiff’s employer was going to be used and that this negligence led to the wrong scaffolding/equipment being rented which in turn caused plaintiff’s accident. The defense proved that the rental company met the standard of practice in the industry and was not negligent and that the accident was caused by plaintiff’s misuse.
Successful Resolution of Breach of Contract and Securities Fraud Action in Federal CourtMr. Lehman defended a publicly traded company in a federal breach of contract and securities fraud suit filed by a former corporate director against the client company. The opening demand was in excess of 3 million dollars. After obtaining summary judgment on many of the Plaintiff's claims, including for securities fraud under section 10(b)-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act the remaining case was resolved for a low five-figure amount.
Strict Products Liability: One More Thing the Internet is Disrupting
The Legal Intelligencer – Product Liability Supplement
Jan 22, 2020
Does Registering to do Business in Pennsylvania Mean Consent to General Personal Jurisdiction?
The Legal Intelligencer – Product Liability Supplement
Jan 29, 2019
Consolidated Cases :The Landscape Post Malanchuk
Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, Volume LXXXVIII, No. 1
A New Day in Products Liability, The Defense Perspective on Tincher.
Verdict, Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association Magazine
Consolidated Cases :The Appeals Trap and other Practice Points After Kincy v. Petro
Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, Volume LXXXVI, No. 2
Asserting the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: A Guide for the Pennsylvania Practitioner
Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, Volume LXXXIV, No. 2.