In a conversation with Arthur Rothrock on The Litigator's Path, Gammill explains how he built a contingency-fee practice by parachuting in as trial counsel for other firms, why he treats media coverage as a litigation tool rather than a branding expense, what Google Reviews and blog content actually do for a plaintiff's firm that word-of-mouth alone cannot, and how he made the decision to grow from solo to a six-person team. The thread running through it all: plaintiff's attorneys who resist the business development work – the reviews, the press, the blog posts – are leaving referrals on the table that their competitors are quietly picking up.
How Gammill Built a Plaintiff's Practice on Trial Counsel Referrals
When David Gammill left Geragos & Geragos to start his own firm, he had a problem familiar to any prosecutor-turned-plaintiff's lawyer: civil experience on paper was thin, but courtroom reps were deep. Rather than compete head-to-head with established plaintiff-side shops for direct clients, he leaned into that asymmetry. His launch strategy had three prongs: take criminal defense cases for immediate flat-fee revenue, be selective about which PI matters he accepted given his lack of staff, and aggressively market himself to other plaintiff's attorneys as available trial counsel.
That third piece became the engine. Gammill had realized, after years of facing civil litigators in court, that most of them simply didn't have the trial volume that a former prosecutor carried. Attorneys who had spent a decade in civil practice might have tried a handful of cases; Gammill had tried over 70. "They're writing books and putting labels and titles on things that we're just learning by doing over and over again," he says of the gap between written trial advocacy guidance and the instincts built through repetition. He contacted every lawyer he knew, letting them know he was available to parachute in as first chair. The referrals came, and they still make up what Gammill describes as "an overwhelming majority" of his current caseload. For solo personal injury attorneys looking for a differentiation strategy, Gammill's path offers a concrete one: if you have unusual courtroom experience, packaging yourself as trial counsel for other firms can generate business without competing for the same Google Ads clicks as everyone else.
Why Gammill Treats Media Coverage as a Litigation Tool, Not a Marketing Add-On
Gammill's education in press strategy came from working alongside Mark Geragos, a defense attorney who maintained a CNN studio in the basement of the firm's building. The masterclass Gammill expected before his first on-camera appearance was two sentences long: say what you want to say, and don't say anything stupid. The brevity of the advice belied how seriously Gammill came to take the tactic.
He points to a civil rights case involving a client who had been assaulted by police. Officers had lied in their reports, and Gammill had video proving it. He ran a motion using the footage and lost – the judge gave officers the benefit of the doubt. Weeks later, the same video went before the same judge at trial. The difference: NBC had aired a major story on the case the night before. "Lo and behold, the judge got it right the second time around," Gammill says.
He frames media outreach as straightforward: reporters need stories, and lawyers with civil rights cases against government defendants – cities, counties, police departments, school districts – often have them. The key constraint is client consent, discussed early and revisited as the case develops. Gammill warns against revealing strategic advantages during discovery, but he considers the broader risks of speaking to the press "somewhat overblown." The practical upside extends beyond the individual case. When a story runs, the phone rings. Anyone in legal marketing, Gammill notes, will confirm that an organic news story mentioning your firm name is the single most valuable form of publicity a plaintiff's lawyer can get.
Google Reviews, Blogs, and the Non-Legal Work Gammill Says Solo Attorneys Cannot Skip
Gammill is blunt about the gap between what law school prepares you for and what running a firm actually requires. "If you'd have told me when I was sitting in law school that a lawyer would care whether or not somebody left them a Google review," he says, "I would have told you that you've lost your mind entirely." But reviews now function as the primary decision filter for cold consumers searching for a lawyer. Gammill doesn't think most prospective clients are reading the text of reviews at all – they're looking at the star rating and the number beside it, the same way they'd pick a restaurant.
His website, which displays verdict and settlement numbers prominently, went through multiple iterations. The first version was a Wix site he built himself in a single 24-hour cram session, motivated by an upcoming CAALA conference where showing up without a website and business cards felt untenable. Later versions involved outside vendors, and Gammill acknowledges spending "probably too much money early on" before the market corrected. He estimates that website development costs for attorneys have dropped dramatically from the $10,000 to $100,000 range he was quoted in 2019, thanks to template builders and AI-assisted design tools.
On blogging, Gammill is honest about the ROI uncertainty. He can't point to a direct case that came from a blog post. But he continues publishing because the SEO benefits of regular content are well understood – a site with only a splash page has a harder time ranking. He uses AI to generate roughly 90% of a draft, then reviews and edits. For simple explainer posts about what a slip-and-fall case involves or what to do after a car accident, he finds current AI tools more than adequate. The complexity, he notes, shows up in the details – where AI still needs a human set of eyes.
The broader point Gammill makes is that social media, content marketing, review management, and sales are not optional for a solo practitioner. "Whether you enjoy it or not, you better get used to doing it."
From Solo to Six: How Gammill Decided to Grow His Firm and What He Looks for in a Team
David Gammill operated as a true solo or near-solo for several years after founding the firm. The shift to a six-person team was recent, and it required what he describes as a mental shift in how he thought about money. A solo practitioner, Gammill explains, can run a firm the same way they run personal finances – money in, money out, keep it simple. Growing means spending on people and infrastructure before the return is visible, and that discomfort is the barrier most solos don't clear.
The motivation was specific: Gammill wanted to try more cases. Hiring support staff and a second attorney meant he could shed the intake coordination, case management, and administrative tasks that kept him from the courtroom. His vision for the firm caps out somewhere around 12 people. Beyond that, he worries about losing the personal connection with every team member – a threshold he compares to the military concept of maximum effective group size.
His management philosophy comes directly from what he hated about the corporate jobs he held before law school: mandatory face time in a cubicle with nothing to do. At Gammill Law, the standard is output, not presence. If the work is done and done well, he considers it none of his business how or where it happened. He works from home himself – something he started in 2019, before COVID forced the rest of the profession to follow – and extends the same flexibility to his team.
When asked whether return-to-office mandates sweeping corporate America will reach law firms, Gammill is skeptical they'll produce the results employers expect. Productivity in 2025, he argues, is always going to be a choice the employee makes regardless of physical location.
Where Gammill Sees AI Fitting into a Contingency-Fee Practice
Gammill draws a clear line between the concerns of billable-hour firms and contingency-fee operations when it comes to AI. For plaintiff's shops, efficiency gains translate directly to profitability – there's no billing rate to protect. If a paralegal can produce three complaints in the time it used to take to draft one, or finalize five demand letters instead of one, the firm handles more cases without proportionally increasing headcount.
He estimates that current AI tools will allow plaintiff's firms to increase their caseload capacity by 20 to 50%, though he's quick to note the range depends heavily on case type. Ten straightforward car-accident-with-a-broken-limb cases can be absorbed relatively easily; ten police misconduct cases requiring federal court filings, body camera subpoenas, and protracted discovery against county defense firms billing by the hour are a different equation entirely.
Gammill's hope extends beyond firm profitability. If AI-driven efficiency makes plaintiff's practices more profitable, and if the people running those firms "are decent human beings that treat people the way they ought to be treated," the result should be higher compensation for paralegals, case managers, and support staff – roles that have historically been underpaid relative to the revenue they help generate. This is the kind of workflow acceleration that platforms like Legion are designed to support, drafting pleadings and discovery in minutes so the humans on the team can focus on the judgment calls AI can't make.
What Litigators Can Take Away
-
Gammill funded his solo launch by pairing criminal defense flat fees with selective PI intake, using the immediate cash flow from defense work to cover the carrying costs of contingency cases while the PI side built up.
-
Rather than competing for the same direct-to-consumer leads as every other PI firm, Gammill built the core of his practice by positioning himself as trial counsel for hire to other plaintiff's attorneys – a referral channel that still generates the majority of his work seven years later.
-
On media strategy, Gammill reaches out to reporters when a case has genuine news value – particularly civil rights cases against government defendants – but always secures client consent first and avoids disclosing anything during discovery that would tip off the opposing side to an unseen strategic advantage.
-
Gammill doesn't believe prospective clients read Google review text; they look at the star count and the number of reviews. His marketing priority is accumulating volume and maintaining a high rating, not crafting lengthy testimonial narratives.
-
When deciding whether to leave a stable position and start a firm, Gammill used a framework he now shares with clients facing settlement decisions: imagine the two possible futures in detail, then ask which outcome you could not live with – and choose the other one.
Listen to the Full Episode
David Gammill's full conversation with Arthur Rothrock covers everything from his Aesop's-fable approach to trial themes to his cell phone number for attorneys who just want to talk through a case without getting a referral-fee pitch. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts. To learn more about Gammill Law, visit gammill.law or follow the firm on Instagram at @gammill_law.