For the cases that matter the most.

Murder-conspiracy prosecution of five members of a putative prison gang who allegedly committed an armed assault on other inmates, resulting in the death of one of them. Mr. Lemon's client was acquitted by jury of every felony charge – including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder – and immediately released from prison.

Mr. Lemon's client, an allegedly high-ranking member of a racketeering organization, was acquitted by jury of attempted VCAR murder and two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) counts in a sweeping RICO / VCAR prosecution. The § 924(c) counts – alone – carried a 35-year-mandatory-minimum consecutive sentence under the stacking rules since repealed by Congress.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, unanimously reversed the drug-trafficking conviction and sentence of Mr. Lemon’s client for prosecutorial misconduct, with instructions to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California to use the video of the argument to train new prosecutors. The case, which Mr. Lemon argued while engaged in the Espudo trial, received widespread coverage in the legal press.

Secured the release of the first person convicted of the murder of DEA Agent Kiki Camarena – dramatized in the Netflix series Narcos: Mexico. René Verdugo was convicted of the murder in 1988, based almost exclusively on the hair-and-fiber testimony of a since-discredited FBI crime-lab scientist. In 2015, the DOJ Inspector General disclosed for the first time that the agent’s crucial testimony “exceeded the limits of science.”

After the federal court remanded the case for a new trial, the U.S. Attorney’s Office stated that it would try Verdugo for the murder again. Mr. Lemon brought motions to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury, post-indictment delay based on prosecutorial misconduct, and a 32-year pattern of prosecutorial misconduct. The government settled the case for a plea to drug-trafficking charges only – not murder – and a time-served sentence, resulting in Verdugo's release from prison after 32 years.

After the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California prosecuted a waste-disposal company and its top two executives under the Clean Water Act for the company's unauthorized discharge of waste to the sewer, it sought aggravated sentences, alleging that the unauthorized discharge had disrupted the operations of a local water-treatment plant. After an all-day, contested evidentiary hearing (with attorneys Knut Johnson and Jason Conforti), the district court found in favor of the defendants, concluding that the unauthorized discharge had caused no environmental harm.

The same prosecutor and federal agents then immediately brought a successive Clean Air Act indictment against the same company and the same executives. The defendants brought motions to dismiss, alleging, among other things, vindictive prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct. The government dismissed the case while the defense motions were pending.

At the request of Becton Dickinson, a $69 billion, Fortune 500 medical-device company, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah indicted a highly regarded scientist and former employee of the company, alleging 20 felony counts of theft of trade secrets. A jury acquitted him of every count. Tried with Tim Scott of McKenzie Scott Trial Lawyers.

This prosecution, brought by the DOJ’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), charged medical doctors, pharmacists, and internet marketers with conspiracy to distribute Schedule III and IV controlled substances through the internet, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, distribution of controlled substances, wire fraud, money laundering, and dispensing misbranded drugs.

The trial, which involved seven codefendants, lasted three months. After almost ten days of deliberations, the jury returned guilty verdicts as to all defendants on all 85 counts. One of the jurors, however, withdrew her guilty vote when the court polled the jury, resulting in an across-the-board mistrial. Mr. Lemon’s client, a pharmacist, ultimately entered a plea to a no-time misdemeanor and was able to keep her pharmacy license.

Mr. Lemon's client was the single-occupant driver and registered owner of a Honda Accord intercepted at the U.S.–Mexico border with 5.7 kilograms of methamphetamine, 7.74 kilograms of heroin, and 12.16 kilograms of cocaine hidden in its quarter panels. The case was ultimately dismissed after a jury hung 10–2 in favor of not guilty.

Serving as lead counsel in a civil trial for the first time, Mr. Lemon won a jury verdict that was more than 44 times the only settlement offer, holding a trucking company to account for a road-rage assault committed by one of its subcontractors (also known as “subhaulers”).

Mr. Lemon’s client, a truck driver, was assaulted at a grain-processing facility by another commercial driver, suffering significant injuries to his head and face. The defendant trucking company maintained that it bore no responsibility whatsoever because the subhauler was an independent contractor, rather than an employee of the company.

A unanimous jury concluded otherwise, finding that the subhauler was the company’s employee under California law and that the assault occurred within the scope of his employment. The jury awarded $11,162,247 in compensatory damages – $7,650,000 of it for the client’s pain and suffering, on roughly $3.5 million in economic losses. The unanimous jury also found – by clear and convincing evidence – that the defendant trucking company had “ratified” its driver’s conduct, which warranted punitive damages. The case then settled confidentially (for more than the verdict) on the morning that the punitive-damages phase of trial was scheduled to begin.

This was the No. 1 verdict in the state of California in 2025 for negligent hiring, workplace safety, and road rage, the No. 34 personal-injury verdict, and the No. 53 verdict across all categories. The result is prominently featured in the television and internet advertising of a regional personal-injury firm. With attorneys Paul Starita and Jim Fendt.

This was a wrongful-death case alleging that Monsanto's Roundup herbicide caused the decedent's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The agrochemical giant treated the case as a nuisance until a hearing on the motions in limine a week before trial, when the court stated that it was inclined to agree with the plaintiff on the admissibility of important evidence that Monsanto had sought to exclude, including a recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, "magic tumor" testimony, and the company’s prior felony convictions.

Monsanto settled the case for 150 times the only previous offer on the morning of trial – when trial counsel and a jury panel were already assembled in the courtroom. With attorney Stephen Demik.

Plaintiff was an elderly and infirm victim of the McKinney Fire (a utility-caused wildfire), whose case was consolidated with those of several hundred other fire victims in the ensuing complex litigation. She moved for an expedited jury trial under California's trial-preference statute, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 36(a)(1). The trial court denied the motion, finding that a single plaintiff in a consolidated case did not have "a substantial interest in the action as a whole."

Mr. Lemon won the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandate (90–95% of which are summarily denied), which resulted in a settlement that was four times the typical recovery for similar damages claims.

The McBride Fire was a utility-caused wildfire in New Mexico, which resulted in complex, consolidated litigation involving hundreds of plaintiffs. The defendant utility company filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs' nuisance and trespass claims – which carried non-economic damages – and the trial court erroneously granted that motion.

Mr. Lemon won a complete reversal on a motion for reconsideration, resulting in the recovery of millions of dollars in non-economic damages by the victims of the fire.

Mr. Lemon previously served as lead liability counsel in several utility-caused-wildfire cases across the Western United States, including: the Slater Fire (California and Oregon), the McKinney Fire (California), and the McBride Fire (New Mexico). The cases collectively settled for well over $100 million.