Lessons From Gary A. Dordick’s $55.3 Million Verdict
Every trial lawyer has one case they still think about. At CAALA Vegas 2026, Gary A. Dordick took the stage for the closing panel, “The Case That Taught Me the Most,” to share one of those cases with fellow trial lawyers.
The case involved a 17-year-old who was shot nine times at an apartment complex in Southern California, suffering catastrophic injuries and losing both legs. Gary represented him in a negligent security case against the security guard.
With liability far from straightforward, Gary built his trial strategy around jury selection and showing the jury the realities of his client’s injuries. The result was a $55.3 million verdict.
Start With the Hardest Liability Question
Gary knew from the beginning that liability would be the central challenge of this case. The security guard involved in the case knew there were gang members hanging around the property drinking alcohol and when they confronted Gary’s client, he went to his car and left.
The defense initially offered nothing. After losing a summary judgment motion, the defense offered approximately $500,000 based on the available insurance policy.
But Gary understood the question the jury would have to confront: What can one security guard realistically do to prevent gang violence? Rather than avoiding that question, Gary built his trial strategy around it. That meant thinking carefully about what the jury needed to understand about responsibility, teamwork, and the role the security guard was expected to play.
Pick the Jury for the Liability Problem
One of the most revealing parts of Gary’s story was how he strategically approached jury selection. He picked the jury “100% for liability.” That meant keeping jurors he might normally be cautious about when presenting a catastrophic injury case, his selection included a Vietnam veteran, a telephone company pole climber, and a firefighter.
Gary knew that these jurors understood responsibility and what happens when someone does not do their job. A Vietnam veteran would understand the consequences when someone in a platoon fails to do what they are supposed to do. A pole climber would understand the risks involved when a member of a team does not fulfill their responsibility. A firefighter would understand the importance of people doing their jobs when others are relying on them. For Gary A. Dordick, jury selection was about finding jurors who could understand firsthand the liability of the case.
Show the Jury What the Injury Changed
Instead of simply having his client explain everything he could no longer do, Gary A. Dordick focused on what he could still do and the limitations and risks that remained.
Gary asked his client if he could still drive. He could, using hand controls. But when he got a flat tire, changing it became a six-hour ordeal. He was able to do much of the work himself but eventually could not get enough leverage on the lug nuts to safely finish the job. He had to call his father for help. This example showed the jury something a list of limitations could not: that this human being could do a lot on his own but now he needed extra help to do those things safely.
For Gary, the goal was not to focus the jury on what his client had lost, but on the challenges that lay ahead. His life was moving forward, and the jury needed to understand what that road would look like.
The Verdict
After presenting the case, Gary A. Dordick asked the jury for a $67 million verdict. During deliberations, he became increasingly anxious. At one point, he saw one of the jurors crying in the hallway and worried that it might signal a bad outcome. Instead, the juror was deeply invested in the decision. Gary later learned that she advocated for awarding the plaintiff the full amount he had requested. The jury ultimately returned a $55.3 million verdict.
For Gary, that case reinforced an important lesson about trial work: lawyers can spend hours focusing on the evidence, experts, arguments, and damages, but ultimately, the jury has to connect with the case and decide what it believes is right.
Build Credibility One Point at a Time
“Trials are all about little points in the bank.”
– Gary A. Dordick
Every interaction can build or undermine a lawyer’s credibility. Overstating damages, making claims that cannot be proven, presenting weak experts, or treating people poorly can cost credibility. On the other hand, being accurate, honest, respectful, and consistent builds it.
By the time a lawyer asks the jury to determine what a case is worth, those small points have added up. Credibility can be just as important as the number being requested.
Closing Statements
Gary A. Dordick’s closing point was that jurors do not enter the courtroom thinking about dollar awards. They listen to the evidence, assess the people presenting it, and ultimately make their decision based on how they feel about it, from the heart and the gut. The lawyer’s job is to build credibility and show the jury why the requested result is the right thing to do.
That was really the heart of Gary’s message at CAALA Vegas 2026: face the hardest part of the case, build your strategy around it, choose the jury with that challenge in mind, and earn credibility one point at a time. But beyond any single case or verdict, Gary’s goal in sharing these lessons was to give other trial lawyers something they can take back into their own courtrooms. After decades of trying cases, Gary continues to share the lessons he has learned with the plaintiff lawyer community while putting those same principles into practice at Dordick Law Corporation, where he and the firm’s trial lawyers represent injured clients throughout Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Riverside, and across Southern California.
