Gage Mathers Law Group traces to a single Phoenix lawyer named Gage in 1964. Six decades later, the firm his daughter still helps run has become the kind of practice other attorneys send their hardest cases to — including one 2018 verdict that made a national top-100 list.
AN AWESOME ATTORNEYS EDITORIAL PROFILE
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING NOTICE. This profile was researched and written independently by Awesome Attorneys’ editorial team. It was not paid for, commissioned, or reviewed prior to publication by the firm profiled. All case results, recoveries, and recognitions described below are attributed to their sources. Past results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice; reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship.
GAGE MATHERS LAW GROUP — At a Glance
| FOUNDED | 1964, by an attorney named Gage, originally out of Phoenix’s historic Luhrs Tower (per the firm) |
| TODAY’S PARTNERS | Martin Mathers (licensed in Arizona) · Joseph D’Aguanno (licensed in Arizona, New York, and before the USPTO) · Matthew Story (licensed in Arizona and Colorado) |
| OPERATIONS LEAD | Elizabeth “Liz” Mathers, Practice Manager — daughter of the firm’s founder, J.D. 1987 and B.S. 1982, University of Southern California |
| OFFICE | 2525 E. Arizona Biltmore Circle, Suite A114, Phoenix |
| REPORTED TRACK RECORD | More than $300 million recovered for clients across the firm’s history (figures reported by the firm have ranged from roughly $275M to $325M across different published dates — see Track Record) |
| SIGNATURE RESULT | A 2018 medical-negligence verdict named to Top Verdict’s Top 100 Medical Malpractice Verdicts in the Nation list |
| FEE MODEL | Contingency (per the firm) |
Sources: gagemathers.com (firm website), Yelp, Martindale-Hubbell, LinkedIn, FindLaw. Compiled July 2026.
A Name From 1964, Still on the Letterhead
Most personal injury firms in this series are young enough that their founders are still practicing. Gage Mathers Law Group predates almost all of them: the firm’s own materials trace its history to 1964, when an attorney named Gage began representing injury victims out of Phoenix’s Luhrs Tower — the 1929 Art Deco skyscraper that remains one of downtown Phoenix’s most recognizable historic buildings. Elizabeth “Liz” Mathers, the firm’s current Practice Manager, is Gage’s daughter; she grew up working alongside her father in that same building before the firm relocated, and today runs the operational side of the practice her father started, having earned her own J.D. from the University of Southern California in 1987 after a 1982 B.S. there.
The firm today operates under the Mathers name, led by Martin Mathers, with Joseph D’Aguanno — licensed not only in Arizona and New York but also before the United States Patent and Trademark Office — and Matthew Story, who holds licenses in both Arizona and Colorado, rounding out the partnership. That multi-jurisdictional licensing footprint is unusual for a firm this size and reflects a practice that, by its own description, draws clients “from throughout Arizona, across the United States, and abroad,” per a statement attributed to D’Aguanno on the firm’s FindLaw profile.
A Referral Practice for the Cases Others Won’t Take
Gage Mathers positions itself less as a high-volume intake operation and more as a firm other lawyers and past clients turn to for difficult matters. Martin Mathers is quoted on the firm’s FindLaw profile stating that “for over 50 years, lawyers associated with our office have been fighting for the rights of injury victims,” language that leans on institutional continuity rather than a single attorney’s personal brand — a contrast with several other Phoenix firms in this series built around one recognizable founder.
The firm’s own site claims a track record of “taking and winning cases that other attorneys viewed as unwinnable” and describes involvement in high-profile matters, including claims against celebrities, athletes, and public figures, though it does not name those matters specifically. Consistent with this series’ sourcing standard, that description is presented here as the firm’s own characterization rather than an independently verified claim.
Where Gage Mathers Concentrates
The firm’s published practice areas span the standard personal injury docket — car, motorcycle, and truck accidents; medical malpractice; dog bites; burn injuries; and slip-and-fall and premises claims — with medical malpractice and catastrophic-injury litigation carrying particular weight in its published results. The firm describes its attorneys as willing to take on “large corporations, government agencies, and numerous healthcare providers,” positioning itself as a trial-ready practice rather than a settlement mill.
A Six-Decade Ledger, and One National Top-100 Verdict
Gage Mathers’ own published recovery total has moved across a range as the firm has updated its marketing over time — $275 million on its LinkedIn page, roughly $300 million on its Yelp listing, and $325 million on its current homepage — which this profile treats as the ordinary drift of a running aggregate rather than a discrepancy to resolve. The most concrete, independently datable result available is a 2018 verdict against a rehabilitation center.
| RESULT | TYPE | MATTER (AS REPORTED BY THE FIRM) |
|---|---|---|
| $4,000,000 | Jury verdict | A rehabilitation center’s negligence causing the death of a client’s son (2018) — named to Top Verdict’s Top 100 Medical Malpractice Verdicts in the Nation for 2018. |
| $300M+ | Aggregate (firm-reported) | The firm’s published, cumulative recovery total across its history, as stated on its current website; not an itemized or independently audited figure. |
Sources: gagemathers.com, Top Verdict rankings as referenced by the firm. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes.
Members of the firm’s team are also reported to have appeared multiple times on Arizona’s own annual top-10 verdicts lists, per the firm’s site, though the specific years and case names for those additional appearances were not independently located during this research pass.
What Clients Report
Client reviews collected on the firm’s own site and third-party platforms describe a pattern of attorneys and staff following through on long, difficult cases — including one client who described being “really sad and nervous about suing a church” over a premises-liability injury, and who credited the firm with a resolution that included getting a hazardous staircase physically removed, not just a financial settlement. Other reviewers name specific staff, including a case coordinator identified as Erin, for extended patience through a family member’s case involving an interaction with Phoenix police.
Reviews of Martin Mathers and Joseph D’Aguanno on peer-review platforms describe responsiveness and thoroughness through lengthy product-liability and other complex matters, consistent with the firm’s self-description as a practice built for harder cases rather than fast turnarounds.
“I would highly recommend Martin at Gage Mathers for any personal injury case. He and his team were responsive and professional throughout this long process.”
— Client review, published on gagemathers.com
A Six-Decade Local Presence
Gage Mathers’ public materials emphasize institutional longevity in Phoenix — six decades in the same city, now spanning a founder’s daughter’s tenure running the practice — more than they emphasize named charitable sponsorships or civic programs. Awesome Attorneys did not locate a specific, named community initiative comparable to those published by some other firms in this series; readers and the firm itself should treat this as an area where the public record is thinner than the firm’s litigation history, not as evidence of an absence of community involvement.
Peer Standing
The firm’s most concrete, independently verifiable recognition is the 2018 verdict’s inclusion on Top Verdict’s national Top 100 Medical Malpractice Verdicts list — a results-based ranking rather than a peer-nomination award. Beyond that, the firm describes itself in its own marketing as recognized among “Best Personal Injury Law Firms in Phoenix and Arizona,” language that reads as the publication’s own or a marketing-program distinction rather than a specific, named credential this profile could independently verify; it is presented here as the firm’s own claim rather than a confirmed peer-review honor.
The Arizona Backdrop, in Plain English
Readers weighing a serious injury or medical malpractice claim in Arizona — the territory of much of Gage Mathers’ published results — should understand the rules that shape a case like the firm’s 2018 verdict. What follows is general information, not legal advice.
The two-year clock. Arizona’s statute of limitations for personal injury and wrongful death claims is generally two years (A.R.S. § 12-542).
Medical malpractice has extra hurdles. Claims against health care providers and facilities — including rehabilitation centers and nursing homes — are governed by Arizona’s medical malpractice statutes, including a general requirement of a preliminary expert opinion affidavit (A.R.S. § 12-2603).
Fault is shared, not all-or-nothing. Arizona follows pure comparative negligence (A.R.S. § 12-2505): a claimant’s recovery is reduced by their share of fault but not eliminated.
Minors and incapacitated adults get more time. The limitations clock is generally tolled for minors and people of unsound mind until the disability ends (A.R.S. § 12-502) — relevant to wrongful-death claims brought on behalf of a deceased client’s surviving minor children.
The Awesome Attorneys Assessment
Gage Mathers Law Group’s case for itself rests on longevity and difficulty rather than volume or advertising reach: a firm operating continuously since 1964, run today by attorneys licensed across four states and the federal patent bar, with a national top-100 verdict on its most recent documented result. For an injured Arizonan with a genuinely complex claim — a case other firms have already declined, or one involving an institutional defendant like a healthcare provider — that six-decade continuity and multi-jurisdictional bench are real assets.
The honest gap is documentation: the firm’s aggregate recovery figures move across a wide range in its own marketing without an itemized public ledger to anchor them, and its community-involvement footprint is thinner in the public record than its litigation history. Readers should ask the firm directly for case-specific references relevant to their own claim type rather than relying solely on the aggregate totals. For a hard case in need of a trial-tested, multi-state team, Gage Mathers earns a place on the interview list.
Methodology & Sourcing
This profile was researched and written independently by Awesome Attorneys’ editorial team in July 2026. Primary source: the firm’s own published website (gagemathers.com), including its attorney biography and results pages. Secondary sources: Yelp, LinkedIn, Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, and Top Verdict’s published rankings. Where the firm’s own published recovery figures varied across pages of different vintages, this profile notes the range rather than selecting a single number as definitive. Gage Mathers Law Group did not commission, pay for, or pre-approve this article. All figures are attributed to the firm’s own reporting; past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. This article is general information, not legal advice.
© 2026 Awesome Attorneys. Independent editorial. Sponsored placements on Awesome Attorneys are always clearly labeled; this is not one.
Publisher Disclosure & Independence Notice
This profile is an independent editorial article published by Awesome Attorneys. Awesome Attorneys does not endorse, recommend, or warrant any lawyer or law firm profiled on this site, and inclusion in this series is not paid placement. “Awesome Attorneys” is a brand name only; it is not a rating, ranking, or claim that any profiled firm is superior in any legal category.
Awesome Attorneys maintains a separate attorney directory. Only listings there marked “Sponsored” or “Ad” reflect a paid or sponsored relationship with Awesome Attorneys; this editorial profile is not such a listing.
Facts, figures, and claims in this profile were independently researched from public sources as described in the Methodology & Sourcing section and are current only as of the research date; they are subject to change without notice, and readers should confirm any detail directly with the firm before relying on it. This notice supplements, and does not replace, the Attorney Advertising Notice at the top of this profile.