Attorney profile

Litster Dugwyler: The Phoenix Firm That Takes Fewer Cases So It Can Fight Harder on Each One

Send a quick message

Submitting this form does not create an attorney–client relationship. Messages are routed as part of Litster Dugwyler: The Phoenix Firm That Takes Fewer Cases So It Can Fight Harder on Each One’s listing on Awesome Attorneys.

READER NOTICE. This profile is independent editorial content produced by Awesome Attorneys. No law firm can purchase placement in, or influence over, our editorial series; sponsored features on Awesome Attorneys are always labeled as such. This article is general information about a law firm — it is not legal advice, and reading it creates no attorney–client relationship. Case results depend on the unique facts and law of each matter; past results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.

At a Glance — Litster Dugwyler, PLLC

FIRM Litster Dugwyler, PLLC
FOUNDING PARTNERS Jonathan W. Litster · Brent Dugwyler
OFFICE 2575 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 1100, Phoenix
PRACTICE FOCUS Catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death — traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, amputation, severe burns, fatal crashes; also complex commercial litigation
FEE MODEL Contingency for injury and wrongful death matters (firm-stated)
CONTACT ldlawteam.com

Origin

Jonathan Litster and Brent Dugwyler both built their trial experience at established Arizona litigation firms before co-founding this practice: Litster practiced civil litigation at Gallagher & Kennedy, P.A., handling complex commercial, professional-liability, and personal injury matters, while Dugwyler founded his own earlier personal injury firm, Eliza Law PLLC, before the two combined practices. Litster was admitted to the Arizona bar in 2020 after graduating from the University of Idaho College of Law in 2019, and was named to Super Lawyers’ Rising Stars list for 2023–2025.

Practice Areas

The firm limits its docket to two categories: catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death — specifically traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, amputation, severe burns, and fatal crashes — and high-stakes commercial disputes. Its own materials describe a deliberate choice to “take fewer cases so we can fight harder on each one.”

Track Record

The firm’s own site describes a $1,375,000 recovery for an Arizona family in a motorcycle wrongful-death case, specifically noting that the insurance carrier initially asserted Arizona’s anti-stacking statute capped recovery at $250,000 before the firm secured the larger figure. Beyond this single detailed example, we did not locate a broader itemized table of additional verdicts or settlements on the firm’s public materials — a limitation worth noting given the firm’s relatively recent founding.

Client Voice

A client review published through the firm’s Avvo listing states that “Jonathan Litster was so amazing, kind and helpful,” citing “fast responses and attention to detail” throughout the case. This is a single attributed, third-party-platform review rather than a broad sample, consistent with a newer firm’s shorter public review history.

Community

We did not identify independently documented civic or pro bono activity specific to the firm or its named partners beyond their professional biographies at the time of writing.

Recognition

Jonathan Litster’s Super Lawyers Rising Stars selection (2023–2025) is a peer-reviewed recognition. No Arizona State Bar Board of Legal Specialization certification was identified for either named partner.

Arizona Legal Backdrop

Arizona wrongful death and personal injury claims are generally subject to a two-year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-542. Claims against a public entity require a notice of claim within 180 days (A.R.S. § 12-821.01) and suit within one year (A.R.S. § 12-821). Arizona applies pure comparative negligence under A.R.S. § 12-2505. Arizona’s “anti-stacking” rules for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage — the specific issue the firm’s published case example addresses — are a distinct and frequently litigated area of state insurance law separate from the statutes above; this is general information, not legal advice, and anyone facing a stacking dispute should confirm current law with a licensed attorney.

The Awesome Attorneys Assessment

Litster Dugwyler is a young firm by Arizona plaintiff-bar standards, but its two founders both arrived with prior trial experience rather than building from a standing start, and its one detailed published case result — beating an insurer’s anti-stacking cap by more than five times the amount initially offered — is a specific, checkable claim rather than a vague superlative. The honest trade-off is track-record depth: a firm this new necessarily has a shorter public history than a decades-old practice, and its stated “fewer cases” model means it may not be the right fit for someone who wants a firm handling high case volume. It’s a reasonable fit for a family facing a genuinely catastrophic injury or death who wants a smaller team’s full attention, and a less obvious choice for a routine claim.

Methodology & Sourcing

Sourced from the firm’s website (ldlawteam.com), individual attorney biography pages for Jonathan Litster and Brent Dugwyler, the Oyez attorney directory, Super Lawyers’ individual listing for Litster, and Avvo’s client review and licensing data. No independent court-record verification of the $1,375,000 case result was performed for this profile; it is presented as the firm’s own published claim. Awesome Attorneys did not contact the firm directly in the preparation of this profile.

Publisher Disclosure & Independence Notice

Awesome Attorneys is an independent legal-directory publisher. This profile was not paid for, commissioned, reviewed, or approved by Litster Dugwyler, PLLC prior to publication.

Practice areas:
Cities:

Attorney profiles are published for information only. Awesome Attorneys is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and a listing here is not an endorsement or a guarantee of any outcome. Sponsored placements are paid attorney advertising and are clearly labeled. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.