tbls1-civiltriallaw-for WEB

Todd W. Mensing focuses on complex commercial litigation.  He is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, a distinction reserved for Texas trial lawyers with a high degree of trial experience and expertise. During the last ten years, an average of fewer than ten attorneys per year statewide has earned the distinction. He is recognized among the top lawyers in the nation for commercial litigation in the 2014 and 2015 editions of The Best Lawyers in America. And Mr. Mensing is recognized in Texas General Commercial Litigation in the 2014 edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business published by London-based Chambers and Partners. He was elected to the prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), an elite group of the country’s leading judges and civil trial lawyers.

Mr. Mensing has tried cases in virtually every arena, including in the areas of commercial and intellectual property disputes, executive employment litigation, defense of catastrophic personal injury cases, and complex family law matters and criminal trials.

Mr. Mensing is on the Texas Super Lawyers 2013-2014 lists and was named one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Houston in 2014. He also was put on the list in only his fifth year of practice and was one of the youngest attorneys in Texas to be named a Super Lawyer. He was named to the “Who’s Who in Energy” list of top 100 Houston energy industry leaders published in 2011 – 2014 in several U.S. city business journals. Mr. Mensing has also been named one of Houston’s Best Lawyers by H Texas Magazine.

Prior to joining Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Mr. Mensing graduated with honors and in the top ten percent of his class at the University of Texas School of Law. He obtained his undergraduate degree from Stanford University.

Here are some of Mr. Mensing’s recent results for his clients:

  • Air Liquide Large Industries U.S., LP v. NRM Investments, Inc., et al.  Won a jury verdict for a Houston-based industrial gases company in a nearly $4 million fraud and breach of contract case. Mr. Mensing’s cross-examination of opponent’s primary expert ended with the key witness admitting he was not, in fact, an expert. The jury rejected all of the $2 million plus claims against Mr. Mensing’s client and awarded his client $1.7 million, representing full damages, including attorneys’ fees.
  • Sentinel Integrity Solutions, Inc. v. MISTRAS Group, Inc.  Defended at trial a Houston petrochemical inspection company in a $10 million trademark infringement suit in federal court in Houston.  At the close of the evidence, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s trademark infringement claim against Mr. Mensing’s client.  The jury then deliberated on Mr. Mensing’s client’s counterclaim for invalidation of the plaintiff’s trademark.  The jury awarded a verdict in Mr. Mensing’s client’s favor by invalidating the plaintiff’s trademark after an hour of deliberations.
  • New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation f/k/a Exxon Corporation, et al. Defended an international gas storage and pipeline company in a $100 million environmental suit brought by the State of New Jersey against Mr. Mensing’s client and two other major energy companies.  After several years of litigation, the State released Mr. Mensing’s client for less than one-percent of its original demand.
  • MBI Global, LLC, et al. v. Hunter Building & Manufacturing, L.P., et al. Five days before jury selection, Mr. Mensing stepped in as lead counsel for two manufacturing executives accused of breaching their fiduciary duties to their former employer by forming a competing company and joint venturing with a competitor. Mr. Mensing also represented the executives’ new company, which the former employer accused of misappropriating trade secrets.  The plaintiff claimed over $100 million in damages against AZA’s clients, as well as several co-defendants.  At the end of the month-long trial, the jury awarded less than 2% of the plaintiff’s damages against the executives’ new company, and no-liability findings in favor of the executives themselves.  On appeal, Mr. Mensing obtained a complete reversal of the verdict, and the appeals court rendered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiff.
  • Wade Brady v. LeaAnne Klentzman and Carter Publications, Inc. d/b/a The West Fort Bend Star, Inc. Obtained a $1.1 million jury verdict, including $1 million in punitive damages, against a Houston-area newspaper.  The verdict represents one of the largest defamation verdicts against a newspaper in Texas history.
  •  Devin Manning, as Next Friend of Byron Marquis Randon, II v. Eloise Angulo et al. Achieved a defense verdict for a Houston medical group in a malpractice trial in which the parents of the child patient alleged that negligent care resulted in severe and long-term injuries.
  •  Al Mamounia, Inc. and Jean Soussan v. Charles M. Lusk, III, d/b/a Guzman Interests, et al. Obtained defense verdict for the owners of the Lancaster Hotel located in downtown Houston in a commercial real estate dispute.  At the conclusion of the two-week trial, the jury deliberated for only two hours before unanimously rejecting each of the plaintiff’s claims. The jury also found against the plaintiff on counterclaims for statutory theft and conversion, and also entered a finding of malice.
  •  Bader Malallah, Ph.D. v. Noble Logistic Services f/k/a Dedicated Services, Inc. Successfully defended at trial the Chief Financial Officer of a publicly-traded company. The CFO’s former employer sued Mr. Mensing’s client for breach of fiduciary duty and sought punitive damages, claiming the CFO had participated in an embezzlement scheme, engaged in self-dealing, and conspired to bring litigation against the company while still an officer. The jury delivered a unanimous defense verdict.
  •  Gaines Watkins v. Input/Output, Inc. Successfully represented at trial an executive of a seismic equipment manufacturer claiming age discrimination. The jury returned a verdict that the employer discriminated against Mr. Mensing’s client when it terminated him, and did so willfully, resulting in a $1.5 million judgment that was the second-largest employment verdict in Texas that year.
  •  State of Texas v. John Doe.  Obtained acquittal at trial of a Houston university professor prosecuted for sexually assaulting a female student. After deliberating for less than an hour, the all-female jury returned a not-guilty verdict.
  •  Ho v. Eckerd Corp et al.  Achieved defense verdict for drug provider alleged to have caused severe and long term injuries by virtue of providing incorrect drug to the plaintiff.
  •  Harris County v.  Shell Chemical, LP. Represented Harris County in a lawsuit against an international chemical company that resulted not only in a historic fine against the company, but also a series of groundbreaking concessions requiring the company to provide notice of pollution events to Harris County.
  •  Plains Marketing, L.P., et al. v. Prairie Pipeline Contractors, Inc. Represented a national pipeline company where the plaintiff contractor alleged Mr. Mensing’s client owed it more than $20 million.  After pursuing a fraud counterclaim, Mr. Mensing’s client settled the matter for less than five percent of the plaintiff’s original demand.
  •  In the Interest of Xochitil Trejo Whetzel, A Child.  Mr. Mensing successfully represented the mother of a minor child in a lengthy and complex child custody jury trial.  The Court-appointed attorney representing the minor child, as well as the father of the child, opposed the relief sought by Mr. Mensing’s client.  Mr. Mensing’s client nevertheless prevailed on all issues.  The trial was the Court’s longest of the year.  Mr. Mensing stepped into the case ten days before trial.
  •  Hedges Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Rio Tinto PLC v. Motion Industries. Defended a national automotive manufacturing company in a trade secret dispute filed in Arizona federal court in which the plaintiff sought over ten million dollars in damages. After successfully asserting theories against the co-defendant and the plaintiff, the case settled for less than two percent of the plaintiff’s original demand.
  •  H.E.Y. Ltd. and Aquaduct LLC v. Millennium Interests, Ltd.  Represented a large Houston real estate developer in a breach of fiduciary suit in which the plaintiffs sought $30 million in damages. The case settled for less than three percent of the plaintiff’s original demand.
  •  Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Company. Defended against a $150 million breach of contract lawsuit related to the joint operation of a pipeline system located in offshore Louisiana. A national energy corporation brought the case against Mr. Mensing’s client, a multi-state pipeline company. Mr. Mensing’s client achieved a walk-away settlement.
  •  Arturo Flores, et al. v. Millennium Interests, et al. Defended a national real estate development firm in a bet-the-company lawsuit filed in federal court. Closely monitored by lawyers, trade groups, and legislators across Texas, the case involved the application of a new series of legislative reforms that had not yet been interpreted by any court, and held industry-wide implications for Texas real estate developers. The Court issued a take-nothing judgment in favor of Mr. Mensing’s client and construed the law in his client’s favor.

Mr. Mensing was born in Modesto, California. In 1994, he earned an A.B. in English, with Honors, from Stanford University. In 1999, Mr. Mensing graduated in from the University of Texas School of Law, where he was a four-time recipient of the Dean’s Achievement Award. After graduating from law school, Mr. Mensing began his career in the litigation section of Vinson & Elkins, L.L.P. In March of 2001, Mr. Mensing joined Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C.


  • Stanford University (A.B., with Honors, 1994)
  • University of Texas School of Law (J.D., with Honors, Order of the Coif, 1999)

*Internet mail is not fully secure or private. Therefore, please do not transmit confidential information via Internet mail. Transmission of information is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not assume that your communications sent using Internet mail are privileged or confidential. Please do not send Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. any confidential information via the Internet without previously consulting one of our attorneys.

**Nothing on this web page is intended to represent that Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C. currently represents any particular clients mentioned because matters and client relationships naturally terminate from time to time.