Jeffrey G. Weil serves as co-chair of the firm's Litigation Section and chair of the Commercial Litigation Department. He is a member of the firm's board of directors and management committee. Prior to joining the firm, he was a partner with Dechert LLP in Philadelphia, where he served as a member of the Executive Committee and chairman of its Hiring Committee. Jeff has experience in a variety of complex litigation matters. He is particularly experienced in class action litigation, including securities, products liability, and antitrust.
Jeff represented USAir and Philip Morris in two of the largest class actions ever filed in the U.S. — the airlines price-fixing antitrust litigation and the tobacco class actions. Jeff also has considerable experience in accounting and legal malpractice cases. He has tried numerous cases to judgment and has argued in federal and state appellate courts. He has also been called upon by other major law firms to represent them in state and federal court litigation.
Jeff is a member of the American Law Institute, a group of leading lawyers, judges and law professors who comment upon and help develop changes to statutes, Restatements of the Law, and principles of law utilized by our courts. He is also listed in Best Lawyers in America. Jeff is active in public service. He is a graduate of Leadership, Inc., a nonprofit program designed to select and train civic leaders of Philadelphia. He has served at various times on United Way committees, Bar Association committees, the Princeton Schools Committee, and the Pennsylvania Wildlife Federal Board of Directors. From 2000-2005, he served as chairman of the board of Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, an internationally known conservation organization dedicated to the study and preservation of raptors, and he continues to serve on its board.
Jeff earned his undergraduate degree from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1973, where he was one of five Woodrow Wilson School Scholars, and his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1976.
August 22, 2018
One hundred twenty-six Cozen O’Connor lawyers from 20 of the firm’s national offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2018 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
June 12, 2018
Super Lawyers has named 54 Cozen O'Connor attorneys to its 2018 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists.
August 23, 2017
Lawyers were selected for inclusion in the 2018 edition based on a rigorous peer-review that has been developed and defined for more than 30 years.
May 26, 2017
Chambers USA recognized 47 Cozen O’Connor lawyers as leaders in their respective fields; 14 attorneys were recognized nationally and 11 were ranked in the top band.
September 19, 2016
Cozen O'Connor was once again recognized for our exceptional litigation skills and results; The Legal Intelligencer has named the firm the 2016 Litigation Department of the Year: General Litigation (Large Firms).
August 15, 2016
Sixty-two Cozen O’Connor lawyers from 13 of the firm’s national offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2017 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
May 27, 2016
Chambers USA recognized 41 Cozen O’Connor lawyers as leaders in their respective fields; 12 attorneys were recognized nationally and 11 were ranked in the top band.
August 17, 2015
The current edition is based on more than five million detailed evaluations by the top lawyers of the country. This list will be included in dozens of city and regional publications in the United States including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post.
June 16, 2014
Cozen O’Connor was honored twice in this week’s announcement of The Legal Intelligencer’s Litigation Departments of the Year, as winner in the category of Insurance Litigation, and as a finalist in the category of General Litigation (Large Firm). Winners were chosen by a pool of case submissions from law firms across Pennsylvania in the third year of the contest.
December 17, 2013
Cozen O’Connor has further expanded the reach of its Commercial Litigation practice in New York with the recent hiring of Adam J. Schlatner, who joins the firm as a partner. Schlatner is the sixth new partner to join the practice in recent months.
October 30, 2013
The International Arbitration Practice Group is newly formed to recognize the firm’s expanding capabilities in this area. This move recognizes expanded capabilities with the addition of Martin Gusy and Matthew Weldon in New York. The practice extends from New York to London and Continental Europe.
August 28, 2013
Forty-six Cozen O’Connor lawyers from eight of the firm’s national offices have been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America. Attorneys were selected based on a rigorous peer-review of more than 4.3 million detailed evaluations. The list will be included in publications such as The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and New York magazine.
February 05, 2013
Jeffrey Weil, Dexter Hamilton and a team of Cozen O’Connor litigators successfully defended a mid-sized, regional law firm and one of its senior corporate partners in a legal malpractice case brought in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The case involved an underlying business transaction that went bad. Our law firm clients had represented a closely held corporation whose stock was sold to a publicly traded company.
December 18, 2012
Michael J. Heller, Larry P. Laubach, Steven N. Haas, Jeffrey A. Leonard, Herman C. Fala and Jeffrey G. Weil were named to the Philadelphia SmartCEO’s 2012 list of Legal Elite.
January 10, 2012
In an article titled ''The Small Claims Approach,'' Jeff Weil commented on a recent case involving a California woman's approach to suing Honda in small claims court. Jeff, having defended auto manufactures in small claims court several times in the past stated, ''that that forum is a plaintiff-friendly forum often-times, in fact, most often the plaintiff does not have a lawyer and the court almost bends over backward to assist the complainant to make their claim.''
February 09, 2011
Forty-three Cozen O’Connor lawyers from six of the firm’s national offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2011 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Lawyers were selected for inclusion in the 2011 edition based on a rigorous peer–review of more than 3.1 million detailed evaluations.
August 05, 2010
Jeffrey G. Weil, chair of the Commercial Litigation Department, wrote an article for The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel on how businesses can take advantage of their arbitration agreements. The article explains how companies can maximize the benefits of arbitration by periodically updating and tailoring their standard arbitration clauses. The companies should specify which disputes they want to arbitrate, structure the arbitration schedule according to the type and importance of the case, clarify the arbitrator’s powers, and make sure the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Jeff gives straightforward advice when they note, ''The best way to avoid the potential pitfalls of arbitration is to plan ahead and then follow the plan.''
July 08, 2010
Jeffrey G. Weil and Jill M. Caughie Wrote an Article for CFOZone.com on Hedge Funds for Litigation
December 01, 2009
Jeffrey G. Weil and Robert A. Chu’s Article Addressing Email Theft is Posted by The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel
September 29, 2009
Forty-two Cozen O’Connor attorneys from seven of the firm’s national offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2010 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
May 28, 2009
Cozen O’Connor is proud to announce that 52 attorneys from the firm’s Philadelphia and West Conshohocken offices have been named 2009 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers by Law & Politics, and will appear in the June 2009 issues of Philadelphia magazine and Pennsylvania Super Lawyers.
February 19, 2009
Cozen O’Connor Attorneys Jeffrey G. Weil And James Gardner Colins Named To List Of Top Lateral Hires
October 01, 2008
Jeffrey Weil Joins Cozen O'Connor To Chair Commercial Litigation Department
April 29, 2015
Trial lawyers try cases. They command the courtroom, dazzle juries and disdain the commonplace “litigator.” Having recently tried a jury case, I was reminded of the trial lawyer’s standard recipe for success: well-prepared cross-examination mixed with a healthy dash of theatre.
December 24, 2014
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently denied class certification in a consumer fraud case. In Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, No. 13-4329 ((3d. Cir. Sept. 11, 2014), the court affirmed a trial court order denying certification of a nationwide class of consumers allegedly overcharged by the defendant. The opinion is instructional on current class action law and underscores the rigor with which trial courts are expected to analyze motions for class certification.
August 27, 2014
There is a split among the circuits regarding what a whistleblower must plead to survive a motion to dismiss in False Claims Act (FCA) cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has now spoken for the first time on the issue. In June, the Third Circuit decided Foglia v. Renal Ventures Management, 754 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 2014). In its decision, the Third Circuit reversed a district court order granting a motion to dismiss for insufficient detail in the pleadings. In so ruling, the Third Circuit sided with those circuits adopting the less demanding of the competing FCA pleading standards.
June 25, 2014
In a recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit addressed the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)'s amount in controversy requirement. In Hoffman v. Nutraceutical, No. 13-3482, slip op. (3d Cir. March 27, 2014), the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to state court. The court held that the CAFA jurisdictional requisites, including the amount in controversy requirement, were satisfied and supported federal jurisdiction. Embedded in the decision is an interesting operational assumption: Instead of the burden being on the defendant to prove that the CAFA amount in controversy requirement had been met—as is true in most CAFA cases—the burden was placed on the plaintiff to show that the jurisdictional amount had not been met.
April 23, 2014
When is it reasonable to rely on a fraudulent statement? Courts applying Pennsylvania law have answered this question in different and conflicting ways, as two recent decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania illustrate. According to the court in Zenith Insurance v. Wells Fargo Insurance Services (E.D. Pa., Jan. 7, 2014), you are entitled to rely on a fraudulent statement no matter what, unless the statement's falsity is obvious on its face or you have actual knowledge of its falsity. Just a few months before, however, a different judge of the same court had expressed the opposite view in Fulton Financial Advisors v. NatCity Investments (E.D. Pa., Oct. 15, 2013): A victim of fraud cannot accept a fraudster at his or her word, but must exercise some degree of diligence in attempting to verify the statement.
February 26, 2014
Arbitration clauses are the fashion now. We are frequently reminded that parties save time and money through the arbitration alternative to litigation. It is not without irony, then, that arbitration clauses have engendered plenty of old-fashioned litigation. Two recent Pennsylvania federal court decisions deal with the enforceability of arbitration clauses, and both decisions foretell of added litigation in the arbitration arena.
November 27, 2013
When is insurance not insurance? According to both Merriam-Webster and Black's Law Dictionary, insurance is a "contract whereby one party undertakes to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril." Under that definition, "insurance" would include surety agreements, where one party agrees to indemnify another party if a third party defaults on a debt or fails to perform on a contract. But not so fast. A recent Pennsylvania federal court decision dismissed a bad-faith claim against a surety, finding that a surety bond is not "insurance" in Upper Pottsgrove Township v. International Fidelity Insurance, No. 13-1758 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 2, 2013).
September 25, 2013
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently decided a case involving a challenge, on religious grounds, to the Affordable Care Act. In Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 13-1144, the Third Circuit rejected a religious-based constitutional challenge to the act's provision requiring companies to offer health insurance that covers contraceptives for women.
July 24, 2013
The heightened pleading standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal has become a familiar tool for defense counsel seeking to dismiss a complaint in federal court. But is what's good for the goose also good for the gander?
May 22, 2013
A settlement is a settlement. The parties agree on its terms, terminate the litigation, and move on. Right? Not always. Class actions, for example, are different. There, the courts must review the settlement to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. If it is not, the court may reject the settlement and require the parties to craft different settlement terms or resume litigation.
March 27, 2013
Two recent decisions prove that nothing is as simple as it seems — especially removal. The opinions by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February illustrate hidden traps in the removal process. Given the importance of forum to the outcome, litigation counsel should understand not just the letter of removal statutes, but the nuances developed by recent case law.
November 29, 2012
If you think you understand the law of waiver, read on. You may be surprised to learn that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not yet decided whether typical waiver principles apply to choice-of-law issues.
September 07, 2012
An interesting case is unfolding in Delaware Chancery Court. The case was brought by the shareholders of El Paso Cop. against the El Paso board and its banker, Goldman Sachs, and it involves the $23 billion merger between El Paso and Kinder Morgan.
July 31, 2012
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently issued an important decision that potentially affects how corporate acquisitions are best structured to minimize the liability risks confronting the buyer. In a 5-2 decision in Fizzano Brothers Concrete Products v. XLN Inc., the court addressed the law of a corporate successor liability.
April 09, 2012
Federal court class actions have been around for over 50 years. As they grew in importance in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a bit like the tale of Frankenstein. Had the class action rule created an improved tool allowing small claimants a fair day in court against large, deep-pocketed corporations? Or had the class action become something greater than intended — something that turned the risks and costs of litigation so much against corporate defendants that the class action had merely substituted one form of unfairness for another?
April 09, 2012
Federal court class actions have been around for over 50 years. As they grew in importance in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a bit like the tale of Frankenstein. Had the class action rule created an improved tool allowing small claimants a fair day in court...?
January 30, 2012
Philadelphia Commerce Court Sustains the PA Business Judgment Rule - The Legal Intelligencer - The Philadelphia Commerce Court recently issued an opinion declaring the business judgment rule alive and well for corporate boards in Pennsylvania. In a case involving a board's decision to sell the company, the court relied upon the findings of a special litigation committee and rejected shareholder allegations that the SLC was biased and did not act in the best interest of the corporation.
November 14, 2011
In Wake of Wal-Mart Case, Class Actions Still Alive and Well - The Legal Intelligencer - In Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a grant of class certification. The case involved allegations of discrimination against women, and the Supreme Court said that the case involved too many individual claims, circumstances and factual analyses to be litigated on a classwide basis.
October 04, 2011
'Trial by the Clock': Has the Time Come? - The Legal Intelligencer - A few weeks ago, we had a trial in federal court. The case involved alleged misrepresentations in connection with the sale of auction rate securities and was relatively complex. There had been 25 depositions, and over 500,000 documents were exchanged. Liability was vigorously contested, and damages were complicated because the principal damage was lost liquidity -- not a readily calculated drop in the security's price.
July 19, 2011
A 3rd Circuit Lesson in Why Words Matter: Forum Selection Clauses - The Legal Intelligencer - A recent 3rd Circuit decision demonstrates how seemingly innocuous word choices can have far-reaching
May 09, 2011
How secret is the settlement that you obtained with help from the court? Over the years, the answer in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has been "not so secret" — even when you expressly provided for it to be secret. Because of the 3rd Circuit's recent decision in LEAP Systems Inc. v. MoneyTrax , settling parties with secrecy concerns now have a little more comfort.
March 14, 2011
A Retrospective Look at Sporck: A Seminal Case Still Worth Reading - The Legal Intelligencer - Just over 25 years ago, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Just over 25 years ago, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Sporck v. Peil . The case was a seminal decision and involved issues still very relevant today: how lawyers prepare witnesses for deposition and the attendant limits of the work product doctrine.
November 30, 2010
Third Circuit Sends Mixed Messages on Class Action Settlements - The Legal Intelligencer - The Third Circuit has issued three decisions, within a three-month span, about class
action settlements. The three cases send different signals about the trial court’s role in reviewing
class action settlements.
September 30, 2010
Consent to Settlement Agreement May Not Bar Negligence Claim - The Legal Intelligencer - In Guido v. Duane Morris LLP , the New Jersey Supreme Court held in a June 8 opinion that a client's consent to settlement does not necessarily bar a malpractice action arising from that settlement. The court also held that the client need not seek to vacate the underlying settlement agreement as a prerequisite to the malpractice action. In so ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court pulled back from an earlier
September 24, 2010
The Third Circuit recently issued two opinions that seem at odds with each other over the role of the trial court in reviewing class action settlements. In June 2010, the Third Circuit reversed a trial court for too actively scrutinizing a class-wide settlement. A month later, the Third Circuit did...
July 09, 2010
3rd Circuit Case Illustrates Certification Procedure's Efficiency - The Legal Intelligencer - Recently, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invoked the little used procedure of “certification” of questions to the state Supreme Court to clarify an important issue of state law. The use of the certification procedure had the dual effect of providing the court and parties to the action an efficient method for resolution of pivotal and undecided state law issues while simultaneously reminding
July 08, 2010
Is a hedge fund behind that plaintiff? - CFO Zone - Many legal claims ‐ both legitimate and frivolous ‐ never make it to the court room simply because of the expense of litigation. But a new trend in third‐party litigation financing is changing that for some commercial plaintiffs by providing a funding source to assist with litigation expenses in exchange for a cut of a successful award or settlement. The principle source of this money is hedge funds, as they are finding certain
August 01, 2009
“Get it and forget it.” That is how many companies approach arbitration clauses. That is a mistake for two reasons. First, an arbitration agreement enables a company to structure the dispute resolution process to meet its needs. A company should not waste that unique opportunity through inattention or lack of preparation. Second, the law relating to arbitration agreements continues to evolve.
February 01, 2009
When Fraud Happens to You: Evaluating Your Options & Best Chances for Recovery - Forensic Insight - Recently, the scariest part of each day is opening the morning newspaper and seeing what new fraud has made the headlines. Bernard Madoff and his hedge fund. Joseph Forte and his investment fund. Jack Bennett and New Era Philanthropy. John Rigas and Adelphia. Hopefully, the article under the headline won’t mention you or your clients. But sometimes it does.
Events & Seminars
October 25, 2011 - Philadelphia, PA