Jeffrey A. Lamken
Private practice · Washington, D.C. · Attorney · argued OT 2011–2022
6arguments since OT 2010
3–2record (side argued for), 60%
48Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
70%of those remarks read as doubt by Jev (all advocates 63%)
Arguments by term
Side wonSide lostPending / unclear
Arguments
| Term | Case | Side | Role | Result | Remarks faced | Doubt (Jev) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OT 2022 | Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 82 | 56% |
| OT 2022 | National Pork Producers Council v. Ross | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 25 | 71% |
| OT 2020 | No. 19-1434 | – | Attorney | – | 51 | – |
| OT 2016 | Ziglar v. Abbasi | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 13 | 71% |
| OT 2015 | Bank Markazi v. Peterson | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 59 | 71% |
| OT 2011 | First American Financial Corporation, Successor in Interest to the First American Corporation et al. v. Denise P. Edwards | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 56 | 79% |
Names, roles and sides from each transcript's list of appearances; results from the Supreme Court Database (did the side argued for win). Remarks faced: Justice turns of five words or more right after this advocate spoke, open period only. Doubt: TypeSafe's Jev reading of those remarks (an experiment, available where our research run covered the case).