James P. Dorr

James Dorr is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wildman Harrold. For nearly 30 years, Jim’s practice has focused on national litigation management and trial of complex commercial, product liability, and mass tort litigation. He has appeared in the trial or appellate courts of over 90 percent of the states and has tried cases to verdict as lead trial counsel in approximately one third of the states. He has extensive experience defending “bet the company” and “bet the industry” litigation including successfully defending industry leaders in newly evolving aggregative claims brought by governmental officials, class representatives, and individuals asserting theories of public nuisance, negligent marketing and distribution, deceptive trade practices, and unjust enrichment. He is skilled at formulating legal and factual defenses to these high-profile issues and presenting them to trial and appellate courts throughout the country. He has also led joint defense groups in the defense of industry-wide litigation. Jim has been the national coordinating and chief trial counsel for Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., the largest firearms manufacturer in the United States, for more than 25 years. In addition, he has coordinated product liability litigation and tried cases for several other firearms, consumer product, pharmaceutical, and chemical manufacturers, often serving as lead trial counsel. He has served as engagement partner for the firm in its role as one of DuPont’s primary law firms since 1993. Jim has successfully steered clients through the legal, public relations, and governmental relations issues that stem from emerging, complex, policy-oriented, and oftentimes highly emotional and politically charged litigation.

Representative Experience:

Served as a lead defense trial counsel and chaired the joint defense group in a suit brought against more than 70 manufacturers and distributors of firearms, resulting in an advisory jury verdict for the defendants. This highly publicized case before Judge Jack Weinstein was one of the first cases tried to a jury involving a claim of public nuisance in the marketing and distribution of products. The National Law Journal selected this case as one of the top ten defense verdicts of 2003. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. American Arms, et al., U.S.D.C., Eastern District of New York.
Chaired the joint defense group of approximately 43 manufacturers and in excess of 30 distributors of firearms and served as a lead trial counsel in one of the first negligent distribution cases to be permitted to go to a jury. Successfully obtained a defense jury verdict on behalf of the firm’s clients before Judge Jack Weinstein. Hamilton v. Accu-tek, et al., U.S.D.C., Eastern District of New York.
Represented manufacturer defendant, in partnership with other national counsel, in defense of highly publicized public nuisance claims brought by the State of Rhode Island against former manufacturers of lead pigment and lead paint. Argued and obtained dismissal of Civil Conspiracy count for all defendants. (Client was dismissed from case before recent jury verdict.) State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., et al., Superior Court, State of Rhode Island.
Represented Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. and served as head of joint defense group in the defense of 21 lawsuits brought by 34 municipalities and other governmental entities, including the Attorney General of New York, against members of the firearms industry for damages, recovery of governmental costs, and injunctive relief, resulting in the dismissal of 18 of the 21 cases involving 31 of the 34 governmental entities on motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or voluntary dismissal. The remaining three cases are in various stages of decision-making related to motions to dismiss pursuant to the recently enacted Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Successfully defended public nuisance lawsuits brought by the City of Chicago against the firearms industry, City of Chicago v. Beretta USA Corp., 213 Ill. 2nd 351 (2005), and against lead paint defendants for damages and abatement of lead pigment in paint in buildings in the City of Chicago. City of Chicago v. American Cyanamid Co., 355 Ill. App. 3d 209 (2005); review denied 215 Ill. 2d 594 (2005).
As national product liability coordinator and chief trial counsel for Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., successfully represented the company through litigation involving its “old model” single action revolver, which had been the subject of a major early punitive damages verdict and resulting onslaught of litigation prior to the company’s retention of Wildman Harrold as counsel, and defense jury verdicts in 100 percent of the trials involving the company’s other products.
Obtained defense verdicts as lead counsel in cases brought by individual plaintiffs in traditional product liability actions which were highly publicized or involved substantial injuries or punitive damages claims including:
- Defense verdict in highly publicized wrongful death product liability trial broadcast live on Court TV. Siblerud v. Sturm, Ruger, Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County;
- Defense verdict on behalf of pharmaceutical client whose withdrawn product and procedure were alleged to have caused plaintiff’s paraplegia. Renfro v. Smith Laboratories, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Sandusky, Ohio;
- Defense verdict in case where plaintiff allegedly became a quadriplegic as a result of defect in client’s product. Stellyes v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et al., Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County;
- Defense verdict in case involving severe brain injury when client’s product allegedly discharged on being dropped. Tyson v. Colt Industries, U.S.D.C., Southern District of Mississippi.
Has argued appeals in the Courts of Appeals for the Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits; the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Indiana, Montana, and Ohio; and the intermediate appellate courts of Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York, and Ohio.

Reported Decisions:

City of Chicago v. American Cyanamid Co., 355 Ill. App. 3d 209 (2005); review denied 215 Ill. 2d 594 (2005)
City of Chicago v. Beretta USA Corp., 213 Ill. 2nd 351 (2005)
In re Firearms Cases, 126 Cal. App. 4th 959 (2005)
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., multiple reported decisions, including 317 F.Supp. 2d (U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y. 2004) granting constitutional jury in public nuisance case seeking equitable relief only
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003)
People of the State of New York v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., 761 N.Y.S. 2d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003), leave to appeal denied 100 N.Y. 2d 514 (2003)
Halliday v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., 368 Md. 186 (Md. Court of Appeals 2002)
City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 768 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio S. Ct. 2002)
City of Philadelphia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 277 F.3d 415 (3rd Cir. 2002)
Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3rd Cir. 2001)
Penelas v. Arms Technology, Inc., 778 So.2d 1042 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2001), cert denied, 799 So.2d 218 (Fla. 2001)
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 780 A.2d 98 (Conn. S.Ct. 2001)
Bubalo v. Navegar, 1997 WL 337218 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 1997), on reconsideration, 1998 WL 142359 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 1998)
First Commercial Trust Co. v. Colt’s Mfg. Co., 77 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 1996)
Way v. Boy Scouts of America, 856 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993)
Kelly v. R.G. Industries, Inc., 497 A.2d 1143 (Md. Ct. of Appeals 1985)

Publications And Presentations:

Co-Author, “Putting the Public Nuisance ‘Genie’ Back in Its Bottle: Rhode Island Supreme Court Overturns Lead Paint Verdict," BNA's Consumer Product Liability Reporter, Vol. 36, No. 34, September 1, 2008.
Co-Author, "New 'Administrative' Provisions Of The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 Cause Concern For Manufacturers" Product Liability Law360, August 22, 2008.
Author, “Viewpoint — Marketing Your Mousetrap: A New Source of Liability for Business?” Industry Week, 2006.
Speaker, DuPont PLF Seminar: Defense Symposium for In-House Counsel: Avoiding Litigation Disasters, 2002.
Speaker and author, “Trying the Seminal Case: Hamilton v. Accu-Tek,” DRI Seminar, 2000.
Speaker, “Firearms Litigation: Holding Manufacturers of Lawful Products at Gunpoint,” Network of Trial Law Firms, 1999.
Speaker, “Design Defect Claims in Firearms Litigation,” American Bar Association Seminar, 1999.
Author, “Saturday Night Fever,” The Brief, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1986.
Speaker and author, “Defenses to the Introduction of Evidence of Other Occurrences,” Southern Methodist University Institute, 1985.
Seminar speaker in Washington, D.C., “Liability for the Defectless Product,” 1983.
Speaker and author, “Defense of Allegations of Post-Sale Duty to Warn,” Southern Methodist University Products Liability Institute, 1982.

Professional Associations:

Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers

Product Liability Advisory Council

Association of Managing Counsel

International Association of Defense Counsel

Defense Research Institute

Sports Litigation Group of The Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association

Former Chair, Wildman Harrold Management Committee, 1990–1992

Director, Northwestern University Settlement House

Selected as All Star in Client Service in BTI Consulting Group Survey of Corporate Counsel from Fortune Companies

Recommended as a “Leader in [his] Field” for Products Liability (National) by Chambers USA

Selected: The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers (Product Liability); Who’s Who Legal Illinois (Product Liability); The Best Lawyers in America (Product Liability); Leading Lawyers (Commercial Litigation, Product Liability Defense); Illinois Super Lawyers (Personal Injury defense: Product Liability)

Bar Admissions:

Illinois, 1969

Supreme Court of Illinois

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Trial Bar member)

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits

Please be aware, if you are not a current client of the firm, the attorney-client privilege does not exist and therefore confidential or sensitive information should not be sent in this email message.

I Understand
Cancel