Where Grit Meets the Gavel: Don Godwin’s Self-Made Path to Legal Legend Status

Photo by Justin Clemons.

Don Godwin didn’t grow up dreaming of courtrooms – he grew up mowing lawns and delivering newspapers so his mother could quit her job as a maid. That moment, at just 11 years old, remains one of the proudest of his life. Raised in a small North Carolina town by working-class parents, Godwin never expected to go to college, much less become one of the nation’s most trusted trial lawyers. He was bagging groceries at Winn-Dixie when a regional supervisor pulled him aside and told him he was meant for more. That spark of belief set off a chain of events that would carry him from the back aisles of a grocery store to the front lines of the biggest, most high-stakes litigation in American history.

Today, Godwin stands as one of the most respected, formidable and tenacious trial lawyers in the country. His practice spans a broad range of complex litigation, including oil and gas disputes, “bet the company” cases, environmental trials, fiduciary duty claims, will contests, major family law battles and business torts. The bigger the ticket, the higher the stakes, the more likely Godwin will be getting the call.

"I developed a reputation of being able to hold up really well under pressure and with large numbers,” says Godwin. “It didn’t matter to me how big the number was."

He has tried billion-dollar cases, navigated explosive corporate disputes and played a central role in defending Halliburton during what’s largely understood to be the largest environmental disaster in modern history – the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But what sets Godwin apart isn’t just the scale of his cases. It’s his rare ability to connect with juries, no matter the complexity or stakes.

"I learned quickly to relate to the common man – that is, the jurors,” says Godwin. "If they don't like you, they won't listen. If they won’t listen, they won’t believe you. And if they don’t believe you, they won’t give you what you’re asking for."

Godwin’s courtroom rise wasn’t mapped out by privilege or pedigree. It was shaped by grit, instinct and a relentless work ethic – and it all began with a Winn-Dixie scholarship. His grounded philosophy has carried him from small-town beginnings to the top tier of American trial lawyers – not through shortcuts or ego, but through decades of effort, sacrifice and the instinct to seize opportunity when it knocks.

Godwin is a distinguished member of the Lawdragon Hall of Fame and the Lawdragon Legends.

Lawdragon: What was your path to the law?

Don Godwin: I didn’t finish high school on time. I’d made poor grades my senior year because I skipped a lot of class to work at Winn-Dixie – bagging groceries and stocking shelves. I had to go to summer school to graduate, and after that, I just stayed on at Winn-Dixie full time. At the time, my biggest ambition was to someday manage a store, maybe even become a regional supervisor. College felt like it was for people from the other side of town – not something that was ever in the cards for me.

Then one day, the regional manager called me over the intercom. Usually, that meant you were about to get fired. I walked in ready to defend myself – “I haven’t done anything wrong. I show up early, I stay late, I work hard.”

He cut me off and said, “Don, I’m not trying to fire you. I just think you’re meant for more than grocery store work. I think you ought to go to college.”

That caught me off guard. My first thought was, “How? My family can’t afford college.”

I grew up in a farming family. My dad only made it through 10th grade, none of his brothers graduated. I didn’t even know what college would lead to. It felt so far outside anything I understood or imagined for myself. But Winn-Dixie offered 13 scholarships every year across 13 Southeastern states. I took the test, scored high and got the scholarship.

I never aimed to be the guy for big, complex cases, but over time, people kept calling me when the stakes were high.

LD: Incredible how one conversation can change a person’s life course.

DG: It wasn’t the last time that happened. In my senior year of college, I’d done well in accounting and finance and I passed the CPA examination. I never became a CPA because I didn’t work in accounting. The head of the department asked me what I planned to do after graduation. I told him I wanted to work in accounting at a regional Winn-Dixie store, and hopefully work my way up. He suggested I consider graduate school, saying a master’s degree could lead to a position at the company’s home office in Jacksonville. I told him I couldn’t afford it unless I got a scholarship. He encouraged me to take the GRE and I got another scholarship.

Near the end of grad school, the head of the business school, Dr. James Thompson, asked what I planned to do next. I told him I still had my sights set on Winn-Dixie, maybe even running the company one day. He said, “I’ve got something better – I think you’d make a very good lawyer.” He saw my people skills, my work ethic and my aptitude with numbers. He connected me with John Kimbrough, a well-known lawyer in Memphis and a trustee of SMU Law School in Dallas.

I’d never met a lawyer before. Meeting Mr. Kimbrough felt like stepping into a movie – his office was beautiful. Wood floors and paneled walls. He told me he thought I’d make a great lawyer and offered to buy me a plane ticket to Dallas to meet Dean Charles Galvin at SMU. It was my first time flying. When I arrived, the law school felt like another world – fancy cars, beautiful buildings, things I wasn’t used to. Dean Galvin told me he’d reviewed my background and heard good things. Then he told me he was from my hometown of Wilmington, North Carolina. He’d always wanted to help someone from there, and I was the first to ever walk into his office from Wilmington. He told me to think it over. I said, “I don’t need to think – I’m coming.” That was in the spring. I graduated in June, started law school in August and the rest is history.

What I’ve achieved has always come from others believing in me. I believe God gave me the ability to recognize opportunity when it came and I tried to make the most of it. That’s my story. I think it’s part of what’s helped me connect with juries – not just in Texas, but all over – because I come from a background a lot like theirs.

DG: So then you started in tax law?

DG: Yes, fresh out of law school I became a tax lawyer. I loved tax law. I loved reading into a revenue code and going through it and applying it. And I actually got into litigation, because of the tax case I was involved in as a junior lawyer for a senior partner – they thought that I'd have some aptitude for litigation.

I didn't have any great expectations of what I was going to do as a trial lawyer. But I learned quickly to relate to, "the common man," that is the jurors. I became more and more successful as I was able to do that. The cases started small and then developed to where they are now. But I never really had a goal to be known as a lawyer that handles big, embattled cases. I was never that arrogant – I didn’t think of things that way.

I focused on doing good work and relating to the jurors. As I got better at that, the cases got bigger. I started small in the late '70s, doing general litigation and by the '80s I was representing major oil companies like ExxonMobil, American Petrofina Oil Company and Clayton Williams. My background in accounting helped me to understand the numbers and the juries responded well to me.

In 1985, I represented Tennessee Gas Pipeline out of Houston, which was then the nation's largest gas pipeline company. Those cases went from tens of millions into the billions. By the '90s, I was handling asbestos litigation for Dresser, and when Halliburton acquired them, I took on all their major litigation. In 2010, they called me for the Macondo well blowout – the largest environmental oil spill in history. BP spent billions dealing with it. I represented Halliburton and got them out with small settlements.

I never aimed to be the guy for big, complex cases, but over time, people kept calling me when the stakes were high. I was fighting some of the biggest name plaintiff lawyers in the bar at that time and I developed a reputation of being able to hold up really well under pressure and with large numbers and high stakes. They trusted me to handle the pressure and get the job done.

Don’t assume that a law degree guarantees success. A lot of grads think it’s a ticket to wealth – it’s not. A law degree is just a degree. What matters is what you do with it.

LD: Can you give us an overview of the cases that you're currently working on?

DG: I generally work on a lot of large cases. Over the years, my practice has shifted toward fewer cases overall, but each one is significant in scale. I’m currently involved in a couple of major real estate disputes in McKinney, Texas, centered around a valuable tract of land near the new PGA Headquarters, north of Dallas. It’s a conflict between two groups of wealthy Indian investors – my clients planned to syndicate the property, but things soured with a few partners, leading to high-stakes litigation.

Beyond that, I also take on major family law and business divorce cases – usually highly contested matters involving substantial assets.

LD: What would you consider the biggest changes to the practice you’ve seen over the years?

DG: Technology has really changed the way litigation works today. You can resource huge volumes of documents digitally – no more hauling around boxes of paper. That shift has been a big help in cutting costs for clients, and it’s made trials and hearings more efficient. Instead of showing hard copies to a judge, now you just pull documents up on a screen right there in the courtroom. It’s easier for everyone, especially juries, who tend to trust what they can see more than just what they hear.

There are also fewer trials now than there used to be. A lot of that has to do with arbitration clauses that big companies put in contracts with vendors, employees, and even executives to avoid going to court altogether. And the cost of litigation has gone way up. It’s becoming a rich person’s game.

Another trend I’ve noticed is venue shopping. Lawyers are more and more focused on where cases get filed, trying to steer them into courts they think will favor their side. That ties into something else we’re seeing here in Texas – since judges are elected, you sometimes get judges on the bench who don’t have the depth of experience needed for complex business or estate cases. That’s not a knock on them – many are great – but there are times when a lack of trial experience really shows in how a case is handled.

LD: Has your firm been using generative AI?

DG: We've got a department that is regularly looking into AI and many of our lawyers are working with it. I know AI is going to be good, I know it's helpful in a lot of ways – it’s great for research – but I don't like the way that voices, documents and things can be manipulated to seem real when in fact it may not be. When it comes to document production, construction and preparation, I have some issues with AI because clever people can change what a document says using AI if they choose to do so. As long as you're able to make certain that it's not being used in a negative or dishonest way – if you can be assured that it is going to be honestly used – then I think AI can be very helpful.

Technology is here to stay. It's playing an even greater role in our lives and people have to accept it, learn to work with it and benefit from it. We're not going to be able to stop AI or even slow it down, so we just need to make sure that as it is developed, that it is not used inappropriately or improperly – that it’s regulated.

LD: What advice do you have for young lawyers starting out?

DG: Don’t assume that a law degree guarantees success. A lot of grads think it’s a ticket to wealth – it’s not. A law degree is just a degree. What matters is what you do with it. You have to work hard and be willing to sacrifice – time, weekends, comfort. Without that, opportunities will pass you by. Success isn’t guaranteed. It comes from consistently putting yourself in a position to recognize and act on opportunities. Often, the same chance is presented to multiple people, but only those prepared to see it, and seize it, will capitalize on it.

Learn how to explain complex facts in simple, relatable terms. If they can’t understand you, they won’t believe you. And if they don’t believe you, you won’t get what you want.

I come from a modest background in North Carolina. We weren’t privileged, but I got through college on scholarships. Law school was more expensive – I eventually had to take out loans. If you’re not ready to work and sacrifice, law may not be the right path. Getting the degree is just the beginning. And if you keep putting in the effort and making sacrifices, over time, the money and prestige will come.

LD: You’re known for being great with juries. What would you tell young lawyers about developing that skill?

DG: A great lawyer once told me, “When you learn to relate to the common man, you can walk among kings – and the common man is who sits in the jury box.”

You have to learn to relate to regular people – people who aren’t lawyers. Learn how to explain complex facts in simple, relatable terms. If they can’t understand you, they won’t believe you. And if they don’t believe you, you won’t get what you want.

I tell young trial lawyers there are four key things to being effective. First, they have to like you. Before introducing your client, your priority is connecting with the jury or judge. I want jurors to see me as a regular, down-to-earth person. Jurors tend to distrust arrogance. They can spot when a lawyer is talking down to them or using big words unnecessarily. Even jurors with less formal education don’t want to be condescended to. If they don’t like you, they won’t listen. If they won’t listen, they won’t believe you. And if they don’t believe you, they won’t side with you.

So – they have to like you, then listen to you, then believe you. And if your ask is reasonable, and they believe you, they’ll give it to you. That’s the foundation of being effective in trials. In the end, your reputation as a trial lawyer comes down to whether you’re effective. If you are, you’ll keep getting business, and lots of it. If not, you’ll just plod along.