Jacob Alford

Bar / Professional Activity

• San Antonio Trial Lawyers, Board Member, 2017
• The American Association for Justice
• Texas Trial Lawyers Association, Membership Committee
• Capitol Association Trial Lawyers, Member
• Texas State Bar, Insurance Law Section, 2017
• Texas State Bar, Litigation Section, 2017
• State Bar of Texas, Member, 2017
• Houston Trial Lawyers, Member, 2017
• Christian Trial Lawyers, Member, 2013
• San Antonio Young Lawyers, Member, 2017
• Texas Trial Lawyers, Member, 2017

Verdicts / Settlements (Case Results)

• #1 Highest Verdict in Austin, Texas (non-decedent MVC), 2022
• Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2022
• Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2021
• Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2019
• Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdict in Texas, 2018

Videos

• Jacob Alford is a San Antonio, Texas native and a Texas trial attorney. He has successfully resolved hundreds of cases in favor of injured Texans, and tried numerous cases to jury verdict. He has handled motorcycle accidents, 18-wheeler accidents, bus accidents, train accidents, bicycle accidents, auto-pedestrian accidents, auto accidents, drowning accidents, slip-and-fall accidents, dog bite attacks, workplace accidents, refinery accidents, plant explosions, and wrongful death tragedies., Attorney Highlight featuring Jacob Alford, Personal Injury, 2020

Representative Clients

• Represented banks, large insurance companies, and big oil companies in Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 2012
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Houston, Texas. , 2013
• Represented a large insurance company in its lawsuit against Lance Armstrong for fraud.  , 2013
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Marcos, Texas. , 2026
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Marcos, Texas. , 2025
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Marcos, Texas. , 2024
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Marcos, Texas. , 2023
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Austin and San Antonio, Texas. , 2022
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Austin and San Antonio, Texas. , 2021
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Austin and San Antonio, Texas. , 2020
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Austin and San Antonio, Texas. , 2019
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Antonio, Texas. , 2018
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Antonio, Texas. , 2017
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in San Antonio, Texas. , 2016
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Houston, Texas. , 2016
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Houston, Texas. , 2015
• Represented Texas families against big insurance companies in Houston, Texas. , 2014

Transactions

• Jury Verdict for 1.7 Million. Final judgement of ~1.9 Million. Offer was 80K in June of 2026 when Jacob Alford was brought in as lead counsel on a motor-vehicle collision in Webb County, Texas.  , 2026
• Final judgement after verdict of $59,758.51., 2021
• Final judgement after verdict of $127,981.78., 2019
• Final judgement after verdict of $1,681,023.85 in Travis County, Texas.  , 2022

Special Licenses / Certifications

• Licensed to practice law in Texas. , 2013

Pro bono / Community Service

• Volunteer business formation document and waiver drafting for members of the San Marcos Chamber of Commerce. , 2026
• Sponsor of the San Marcos Education Foundation. , 2026
• Sponsor for United Way of Hays County. , 2026

White Papers

• Led by personal injury attorney Jacob Alford, Injured Texan has spent the past decade representing clients and securing courtroom victories across Texas. After years of operating offices in multiple cities, Alford recently relocated the firm's headquarters to San Marcos, establishing a permanent home while continuing to serve clients statewide. The firm marked its 10th anniversary with a homecoming celebration at its new downtown San Marcos office. Alford said the move was driven by a desire to raise his family in San Marcos while becoming more involved in the local community without changing the firm's statewide practice. Alford's partner in both business and life, Halea Williams, has spent eight years in the person injury industry managing legal work for a large network of surgeons and hospitals from Austin to San Antonio, along with owning her own restaurant and obtaining her doctorate in law. The couple met through work, later started a family and ultimately returned to Williams' hometown of San Marcos to raise their twins and grow the firm's practice. The firm's new downtown office reflects that same commitment to putting down roots, blending historic character with a distinctive design featuring vintage antiques throughout the space. The firm celebrated its new location with a custom installation in the office's entryway created by local interior designer Maritza Sabogal. The space features two mannequins behind the reception desk. One represents Alford and the other Williams, with an explosion of court documents stretching from the figures to the ceiling, suspended in midair. Across from them, fashionably dressed mannequins in vintage attire portray a jury poised to award compensation, while another figure wearing a judge's robe completes the dramatic courtroom scene reflecting the firm's trial-focused identity. Sabogal carefully sourced vintage clothing and antique furnishings to enhance the installation's retro aesthetic. Sabogal's aesthetic fit Alford and Williams' vision for the office perfectly. After spending 15 years in the vintage furniture industry, Sabogal now focuses on residential, commercial, artistic and event design. "Whenever I go into a project, I always like to get to know the client and their personality and what they're into," Sabogal said. "I always want it to be a representation of them and an extension of them, and then also add a twist that may not be expected, like they were expecting a haunted courtroom, but they weren't expecting the floors and the paper. I like to surprise clients as well and give them something that's very unique."For more information about Injured Texan, visit www.injuredtexan.com. , San Marcos Daily Record, Hays County, Texas, 2026

Scholarly Lectures / Writings

• After In re Allstate, Jacob Alford Stopped Trying to Strike the Biller Jacob Alford’s SATLA lecture is a field manual for the world Texas plaintiffs actually live in after In re Allstate Indemnity Co., 622 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2021). The old move — strike the 18.001 counteraffidavit and lock the defendant out of reasonableness — is gone. Coders who can query a national database are “generally well-suited” to talk about medical prices. Section 18.001(f) does not import a Robinson reliability test. Beauchamp is dead. Reasonableness is a jury question even when the counteraffidavit is a mess. Alford’s answer is not to mourn the shortcut. It is to hijack the defense expert.What did In re Allstate actually change?Before 2021, a plaintiff who knocked out the counteraffidavit on qualification, reliability, or notice could often keep the defendant from contesting past medicals at trial. Allstate closed that door. The Court said insurance-side billers with access to national and regional charge databases are, as a class, qualified. It also said a trial court may not smuggle expert-admissibility rules into the 18.001 analysis. A sloppy counteraffidavit still gives notice. A missing counteraffidavit still leaves the defendant free to fight reasonableness with evidence and argument. That sounds like a defense win. Alford treats it as a map of the new battlefield. If you cannot keep the coder off the stand, you make the coder useful.How does Jacob Alford hijack a defense billing expert?The play has three moves, and Alford walks them with the actual deposition of Christine Dickinson — the Allstate-side coder in the case that produced the opinion. First, lock the witness onto a shared source. Get her to say Context4Healthcare is reputable, peer-used, and the same database the plaintiff’s life-care planner relies on. Once both sides are standing on the same book, the fight is no longer “whose secret list is better.” It is what that book actually says. Alford also makes the witness admit the formula inside Context4 is proprietary. Then he puts Ingenix on the table: the last famous secret database that “artificially deflated costs” until it was shut down. Context4, FAIR Health, and the rest were built to rein in prices. At some level they are Ingenix 2.0. Second, attack the percentile, not the résumé. Dickinson moved from the 75th percentile to the 50th because, in her words, the average charge felt “more valid.” Asked what government or industry source justified the switch, she said none. Asked for the basis of the 50th percentile itself: “There is no basis for that, sir.” Alford’s follow-up is the line that stays with a jury: so half the charges in Travis County are unreasonable? Half the pie is bad? She said yes. Third, counter-designate the same expert and file a Robinson motion that limits rather than excludes. Let her bless the database. Stop her from chalking a number below the industry threshold. Calculate the floor she will have to live with. If the strike fails, you still walk into closing holding a number the defense’s own witness created.What percentile is the industry standard for a reasonable charge?Alford’s source work is the part most lawyers skip and the part that wins the motion. The RPC paper puts the ordinary UCR threshold at the 75th to 80th percentile: charges at or below that line are treated as reasonable; charges above it are not. A 2009 Texas Department of Insurance technical advisory committee surveyed carriers representing 95 percent of enrollment in state-regulated Texas plans and found the 75th percentile was the most commonly cited allowable-amount method. TDI’s later 2017 range of 50 to 80 percent is in the record; the RPC paper rejects treating the bottom of that range as the standard. Texas Insurance Code § 1467.083 goes further for out-of-network balance-bill arbitration: the arbitrator must consider the 80th percentile of billed charges in the same geozip. Practice tip from the lecture: if you cannot sponsor the RPC paper, get the 2009 TDI report in as a public record. It does the same work with a government stamp.Why billed charges and paid amounts are different fightsDoctors charge the same sticker to every patient. They accept different payments from different payors. A volume discount is not proof the list price was a fraud. Alford’s water-bottle hypo is the one that survives cross: you do not get to call the Citgo price unreasonable because H-E-B sells a twelve-pack cheaper. The same logic applies to health plans. A doctor who sometimes takes Tricare or does charity work is not required to give the tortfeasor the same haircut. He boxes the witness into one lane. “You are not here to opine on what a reasonable reimbursement would be for any of these charges, correct?” Once she says yes, paid-amount charts stay out of the reasonableness fight.The analogies that actually moved the witnessQuality is not a 50th-percentile cheeseburger. The AMA’s customary-fee idea looks to physicians of similar training and experience. A $15 plate from an experienced chef is not “unreasonable” because the citywide median burger is $5. That is market dynamics. Freedom of choice is the twin: the defendant already chose enough of the plaintiff’s life. The least the room can do is let her pick the surgeon the way she would pick not-McDonald’s. When Dickinson drifted toward “everyone should charge the average,” Alford named the thing she did not want named — universal healthcare pricing — and she snapped, “Don’t use that terminology with me.” That snap is usable. The moral high ground is the same sentence in every analogy: the person who caused the injury does not inherit the volume discount a health plan negotiated for itself.What still works on a Robinson challenge after AllstateAllstate took reliability out of the 18.001 strike. It did not take reliability out of the trial. Helena Chemical still requires methods that match professional standards. An opinion that is only “subjective belief or unsupported speculation,” or that leaps an analytical gap from data to number, is still vulnerable. Allstate itself flagged the risk: using the median charge as the litmus test for reasonableness can be conclusory. In re Chefs’ Produce of Houston, 667 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. 2023), told plaintiffs the obvious next step — if the data is unreliable, file the Robinson motion or take it up on cross. Qualification is a separate blade for the dual-hat defense doctor who wants to talk causation, necessity, and price. Broders v. Heise still says a physician is not an expert on every medical subject. Gunn v. McCoy noted that modern pricing is opaque enough that a treating doctor often has no basis for a reasonable-fee opinion, even though that same doctor is well placed to talk necessity. And then there is the paper fight Alford refuses to forget: Rule 193.6 plus Rule 195.5(a)(4). A retained expert must produce the data compilations provided to, reviewed by, or prepared for the testimony. Proprietary databases love darkness. Make them turn on the lights.The SATLA talk in one line: stop trying to erase the coder. Make the coder admit the book, admit the 75th, and admit that “average” is a philosophy, not a method. , Speaker, Medical Billing - Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics, SATLA, Personal Injury, 2023
• He Cut the Line. He Broke the Vase. Jacob Alford’s Case for No Discount Justice. Jacob Alford’s 2026 lecture is not a damages module. It is a whole-case architecture for the Texas car wreck that will never make the evening news. The organizing idea is two stories running at once. Liability is told from the defendant’s point of view: he cut the line. Damages is told from the plaintiff’s point of view: he broke the vase, and she has been living with the pieces. The sentence Alford wants a juror to repeat at dinner is short enough to survive the drive home. He ran the red. Her life got harder through no fault of her own. The defense team wants fault without responsibility. That is why we are here.What are the two stories in a Jacob Alford car-wreck trial?Cutting the Line is the liability story. Something bad happened. Someone is to blame. Open the case. Do not dress it up as the worst wreck in the history of the world. Call it what it was: a significant disruption thrust into a life that had not asked for it. Breaking the Vase is the damages story, retitled Strength through Adversity when the facts require more care. She had a neck and a back before the wreck — most people do — but they are different now. The harm that actually changed the house is often not the disc. It is sleep, work, the kid she cannot lift, the version of herself she can see from the kitchen window and cannot reach. Then: how the money will help. Not as a slogan. As a plan.What does “the most reasonable person in the room” actually mean?It is a job description, not a compliment. Alford gives it three tasks. First, answer the only question the panel is asking in the first ten minutes: why are we here. Second, split the human defendant from the defense team. The defense team is Big Insurance with a legal pad. Third, make the verdict say, out loud, that there is no such thing as discount justice. The size of the medical bills does not change the size of the wrong. A red light is a red light. The jury’s assignment does not shrink because the MRI is “just” a disc or the wreck looked modest from the bumper. Hold the line-cutter accountable at full sticker price.How does Alford borrow Mitnik, Rowley, and Ball without sounding like a seminar tape?He runs the three through a Texas filter he calls a reality check. Keith Mitnik’s rule — strip every lawyer word — matters more in a small case than in a catastrophic one, because in a small case the story is the only thing that has weight. Everything else is noise. Nick Rowley’s rule is the vase itself: never discount the human; if you break it, you pay what it costs, not what you wish it cost. David Ball’s rule is the discipline that keeps the week short: what rule was broken, who broke it, what it cost her. Prove those three. Stop. Over-proving kills small cases faster than under-proving.What is PIGS, and why does it belong in the first five minutes?PIGS is Alford’s name for the prior-injury problem that Texas panels already understand in their own necks. All twelve jurors have neck and back issues. If you hide the plaintiff’s, the room writes its own story, and the story is ugly: the client is a crybaby, the lawyer is greedy, and everyone is tired of hearing you talk. Own the priors in the first five minutes of opening. Surprise them with honesty. Then spend the rest of the week getting them angry at the other side. Credibility is the whole case in a wreck that does not look like a movie. Be the most reasonable voice they hear all week, and respect their time like it is the scarce thing it is.How does witness order become a closing argument?Alford subpoenas every defense witness and calls them adverse. He starts with the defense expert — pocket and fear in the same chair — then a damages witness who is only a little partial, the kind of coworker or neighbor a jury will not dismiss as family. Plaintiff follows the treating doctor. The life-care planner and economist follow the plaintiff, so the numbers arrive after the person. A family member or friend goes last, which means closing can stand on a human voice instead of a chart. Their experts testify before yours. Extra damages witnesses exist to control the clock, not to stack adjectives. None of this lives on a slide. The lecture is allergic to PowerPoint. Two easels and a set of 3x5 boards do the week: the defendant’s own words, the defense expert’s concessions, an MRI only if a civilian can see the problem without a radiologist, one treatment board with three dates (first visit, biggest procedure, last visit plus future), a medi-visual for the surgery that is coming, the bills printed with the defense biller’s numbers on them, and headshots of the doctors who never showed up.Where the voice actually livesThe prepared close is calm, then hot, then specific. The reserved two minutes are where Alford stops sounding like a teacher. In Victor Gonzalez, the defense sneered that no doctor keeps treating a patient who has not paid. Alford’s rebuttal was not a billing lecture. It was a class fact: some of us did not grow up working at daddy’s law firm with Cadillac health coverage. In Joann Reyes, the defense offered the flea-market vase — knock it over, and the booth owner calls it priceless. Alford’s answer was the one the room could take home. This family is not a flea-market vase. Their lives are not a booth price. The temperature plan is written down because most lawyers get it backwards. Calm while the evidence is coming in. Slightly offended in close. Ready to fight in rebuttal. He calls the last register plumb mad-dog mean, and he means it as craft, not costume.The 2026 lecture in one line: tell two stories a juror can repeat, own the priors before the defense does, and refuse to sell justice at a discount because the wreck was not famous., Speaker, Cutting the Line & Breaking the Vase - Trying Your Small Cases, Sandoval & James PLLC, Personal Injury, 2026
• Jacob Alford’s Post-Chohan Playbook for Non-Economic DamagesGregory v. Chohan, 670 S.W.3d 546 (Tex. 2023), did not outlaw mental anguish awards. It outlawed the lazy number. Fighter jets, Rothkos, and two-cents-a-mile arguments are unsubstantiated anchors. What the Court required is a rational connection, grounded in the evidence, between the injury and the dollar amount. Jacob Alford’s November 2023 TTLA lecture is the worksheet for building that connection in an ordinary car wreck — the case that is not a death case and still has to survive legal-sufficiency review.How do you strike the juror who will never pay for mental anguish?Alford treats voir dire as a noneconomic filter, not a personality contest. He writes two cause scripts and he uses the same lock language in both. Camp A is the juror who will pay medical bills and will never write a check for despair. Name the category out loud — depression, anxiety, suffering — then ask who is in the second camp, the group that could not award mental anguish in a million years. Select one. “So is it fair to say that regardless of the law, the facts, or the judge’s instructions, you simply could not award mental anguish damages?” Take numbers of everyone who agrees. Camp B is the juror who needs more than preponderance for pain. Same structure. Who would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt before putting money on mental anguish? Walk that person to the conflict with the charge they will be asked to follow. Take numbers again. The bonus question in both camps is the one that makes the record: do you agree that because your belief conflicts with the law, you are not going to follow the law when you decide this case.What does a Chohan-compliant anchor look like in a live wreck?Alford’s phrase for the hunt is “find your needle in the evidentiary haystack.” He takes three families of proof straight out of the opinion and refuses to invent a fourth. The first is medical-debt strain. Chohan at 560 notes that a family dealing with hospital bills and insurance hassles while they are also grieving can suffer more mental anguish because of that grind. The bills are economic evidence. They are also noneconomic evidence. Stop treating them as only the first. The second is restorative money. The Court said the rational basis may come from evidence that some amount of money would help the plaintiff deal with grief or restore emotional health. Alford’s worked example is deliberately boring, which is why it works. A BetterHelp subscription at $60 to $90 a week. Fifty-two weeks. Thirty years. At $60, that is $93,600. One product. One price. Tied to a real thing a juror can look up. The third is financial consequence. Chohan at 561 allows a quantifiable amount suggested by the potential financial fallout of severe emotional trauma — the paid help the household now needs, the work the plaintiff can no longer do in the house, the opportunity that closed.How does plaintiff direct plant the number so closing does not invent it?The anchor has to arrive in the plaintiff’s mouth, or it arrives in closing as a lawyer stunt. Alford’s trial examples are specific because generic sore-neck testimony cannot carry a Chohan number. Blanca Galvez, a Spanish teacher in low-income schools trying to get pregnant, gave the room a fear-of-losing-a-child anchor. Victor Gonzalez gave the cost of a mechanic lift. Padron, who had grown up on a farm and worked from age five until a wreck at sixty-three, gave a per diem drawn from what she earned cleaning offices like the defendant’s — with no wage claim attached. The prep rules underneath those examples are unromantic. Sit at the kitchen table. Tell twenty hours of a life in ten minutes. Build the outline after the deposition and the visit, not before. Talk limitations, not inabilities. The plaintiff is a survivor, not a catalog of things she cannot do. Prep her not to ask for money on cross. The number has to feel like it grew out of her week, not out of counsel’s pad.Why the charge conference is part of the damages caseSplit every noneconomic element. Casteel is not optional if you want a verdict that can be saved. Fight for the eggshell instruction. If you cannot kill an aggravation instruction, ask for both and let the jury sort the medicine from the law. Then reorder the blanks. Page one is the eggshell instruction, past medicals, future medicals, past earning, future earning. Page two climbs: past and future mental anguish, past and future pain, past and future impairment, past and future disfigurement. Impairment sits high on purpose. Alford calls it the worst of the noneconomic harms, and he wants the jury writing that number after they have already said yes to the medicine. The staircase is the argument. The charge is the exhibit.How does the close teach a fair calculation without saying the word “hard”?Most lawyers tell the jury that noneconomic damages are difficult to evaluate. Alford treats that sentence as a gift to the defense. Opening should preview a formula and promise to teach a fair calculation. Anchor 1 is the economic total. Then say the noneconomic harm is worse. Make the week about something larger than a bumper — distracted driving, speeding — so the noneconomic ask has a moral frame instead of a medical one. Closing comes in three temperatures. Stage 1 is calm: explain deliberation, take credibility, do not rehash twelve days in twelve minutes. Stage 2 waits until the room is already angry, then asks the mouse-trap question: when is it ever acceptable to break that rule of the road. In Texas, noneconomic damages do the work punitive damages do in other states. Alford puts it on the board as 7th = 2nd. The Seventh Amendment is how a community answers a private wrong the way the Second answers a public one. Stage 3 walks the charge. Define each noneconomic element as if it were a different injury, because it is. Arm the jurors who are already with you: if someone in the back says X, tell them Y. Fifty-one percent of the burden is one hundred percent of the damages. The injury is forever and the verdict is forever. She does not get to come back when inflation eats the number or the future guess turns out short.Who should tell the noneconomic story besides the plaintiff?Less is more, and partial is better than devoted. Coworkers and neighbors beat family when family sounds like a chorus. Family and friends are better than an empty chair. Ex-wives and former bosses are lemonade if you are willing to squeeze them. Put the last human voice at the end of the damages case so closing does not have to rebuild the person from a medical record.The TTLA lecture in one line: Chohan did not take the noneconomic blank away. It required a receipt. Alford’s talk is how to put one in the record before anyone asks for the number., Speaker, Strategies for Non-Economic Damages - Car wreck cases, TTLA, Personal Injury, 2023

Other Outstanding Achievements

• The Firm celebrated its 10-year anniverssary and was featured in the local news: Injured Texan celebrates 10 years with new San Marcos headquarters | Business | sanmarcosrecord.com, 2026

Honors

• Top 10 advocates from a field of~400 attorneys. , Inductee, The Order of Barristers, 2013
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2026
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2025
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2024
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2023
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2021
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2020
• These awards are recognitions given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in America. , Ones to Watch, Best Lawyers, 2026
• These awards are recognitions given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in America. , Ones to Watch, Best Lawyers, 2025
• $1,816,788.03 Final Judgment on $1,000,000.00 policy in Cause No. 2024CVA000775D2; MANUEL HOLGUIN v. PHILLIP XAVIER CERMENIO; in the 111th Judicial District Court of Webb County, Texas, Trial Attorney, Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2026
• $1,681,023.85 Final Judgment on $1,500,000.00 policy in Cause No. D-1-GN-17-006640; Edward Reyes et al v. Eric Valdez; in the 419th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, Lead Attorney, Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2022
• $127,981.78 Final Judgment on $30,000/$60,000 policy in Cause No. 2016-53403; Gonzalez et al v. Carballo; in the 55th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas., Lead Attorney, Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2021
• Member 2013-present, Member, MENSA, 2013
• $59,758.51 Final Judgment on $30,000/$60,000 policy in Cause No. D-1-GN-16-004045; Galvez-Perez v. Leyendecker; in the 345th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas., Lead Attorney, Top 100 Motor-Vehicle Verdicts in Texas, 2019
• These awards are recognitions given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in America. , One to Watch, Best Lawyers, 2023
• These awards are recognitions given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in America. , One to Watch, Best Lawyers, 2024
• Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of attorneys in their field each year. , Super Lawyer, Thompson Reuters, 2019
• Elected, Mock Trial Director, Board of Advocates, 2013

Industry Groups

• Trial Law

“Jacob Alford, and his partner Will Clark, are truly exceptional lawyers, who are building a well-respected personal injury law firm.”

“One of the best attorneys I have met. Knows litigation inside and out. Clients love him!”