David W Gammill

David Gammill is a prominent Los Angeles trial attorney and the founder of Gammill Law, a boutique firm dedicated to securing justice in complex personal injury and civil rights cases. Known for his relentless advocacy, David represents individuals harmed by negligence, abuse of power, and systemic injustice—fighting for fair compensation and meaningful reforms that protect clients and their communities.

Drawing upon extensive trial experience, Gammill meticulously prepares each case, leveraging evidence-based strategies and a keen understanding of the legal landscape. His client-centered approach ensures transparent communication and personalized guidance, with a focus on delivering tangible, life-changing results for those facing serious injuries, wrongful death, or violations of fundamental civil liberties.

At Gammill Law, clients benefit from a forward-thinking legal team committed to holding wrongdoers accountable, challenging institutional misconduct, and ensuring that victims’ voices are heard. Whether advocating for those injured by reckless behavior or confronting unjust practices that discriminate against vulnerable populations, David Gammill’s unwavering dedication and trusted counsel empower clients to rebuild their lives and restore their dignity.

When you need a tireless ally to champion your rights and secure the compensation and justice you deserve, look no further than David Gammill and Gammill Law.

• Credit Cards Accepted
• Contingent Fees

California

Utah

9th Circuit

Founding Partner & Trial Attorney

Gammill Law

Current

University of Notre Dame

J.D. (2008) | Law

2005 - 2008

Michigan State University

B.A. (2002) | Business

1998 - 2002

Honors: Dean's List

Number 3 Verdict: Civil Rights 2017

TopVerdict.com

2018

Top Felony Trial Attorney

Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office

2014

New Trial Attorney of The Year

Orange County District Attorney’s Office

2009

State Bar of California  # 258286

Member

Current

State Bar of Utah  # 16281

Member

Current

Pomona officer charged with civil rights violations

Eyewitness News ABC7.com

October 27, 2017

SMYERS v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE 2006

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

June 30, 2006

Cross Examination, Continued Education for Lawyers

January 1, 2012

Q. Who should I sue in civil court for assault by landlord's son in CA?

September 1, 2025

A: Both. Here’s why that matters.

The son’s the one who put his hands on you - that’s obvious. But mom knew he was violent, warned you about it in writing, and still let him live in the same house where she’s renting to a 75-year-old tenant. Those text messages you have? That’s gold. She can’t claim she didn’t know her son was dangerous when she literally told you he was.

In California, landlords have a duty to protect tenants from known dangers. When the danger is your own violent adult child living on the property, and you’ve got a 75-year-old tenant you’ve already warned about him, that duty gets real serious real fast.

The criminal case got you restitution, but criminal restitution and civil damages are two different animals. Restitution covers your out-of-pocket losses. Civil court covers your pain, suffering, medical bills, and the fact that you can’t feel safe in your own home anymore.

Here’s the beautiful part - the son’s already been convicted. In civil court, that conviction is going to make proving he assaulted you about as easy as it gets. The harder question is proving mom’s liability, but those warning texts she sent you are going to make that conversation very uncomfortable for her.

The son might be broke and on probation. But mom owns property and carries landlord insurance. Guess which pocket has more money in it?

You don’t sue one or the other. You sue both and let them figure out who pays what.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ ... Read More

Q. What steps can I take after a hospital sexual assault report with no response?

August 12, 2025

A: August 6th and they still haven't given you the tech's name? That's not an accident - that's a calculated move. Hospitals have patient safety protocols they're supposed to follow, and when they don't, it's because they're more worried about their liability than your safety.

Here's what's happening behind the scenes: they've already talked to their risk management team, they've already talked to their lawyers, and they've already started building their defense. Meanwhile, you're sitting there without even basic information like the guy's name. That's not how this is supposed to work.

The fact that they immediately went silent after your report tells you everything you need to know about how seriously they're taking this. They're hoping if they stonewall long enough, you'll just go away. But sexual assault by a hospital employee isn't something that just disappears because they refuse to return your calls.

You've got rights here that they're hoping you don't know about. Hospital employees are supposed to be vetted, supervised, and held accountable. When they're not, and something like this happens, the institution doesn't get to play dumb and hope it blows over.

The police report is your call, but don't let the hospital's silence be what stops you from exploring every option you have. There are ways to make them take this seriously and get you the answers you deserve - starting with that technician's name they're refusing to give you.

This isn't going to fix itself, and they're counting on you not knowing what moves to make next. ... Read More

Q. My 18-year-old brother is wanted for questioning after breaking a window. What should he do?

August 7, 2025

A: You posted this in Personal Injury and Criminal Defense. It is a question for criminal defense.

If he does nothing, he might eventually be picked up for questioning, which could result in a night or two in jail or, more likely, a citation to appear in court later with no time in custody.

If you retain a lawyer who makes contact with the police proactively (saving them the trouble of finding him) it will reduce the odds of spending even a night in jail from happening but not eliminate it.

All in all, no one is going to be looking to keep an 18-year-old in jail over a broken window.