Kristin Kruse Lotz
Kristin has experience in all stages of the trial and appellate processes as well as arbitration. Kristin has extensive experience in both state and federal courts handling a wide range of complex business litigation matters including business torts, complex commercial disputes, employment, environmental disputes, and royalty litigation. Kristin’s clients have spanned a wide range of industries including oil and gas, banking, manufacturing, pharmaceutical technology, and insurance.
Kristin earned her J.D. from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, where she served as Associate Managing Editor of the SMU Law Review and received the SMU Law Review Best Casenote and Best Comment Awards. Kristin earned her B.A. in Political Science and German with honors from Texas A&M University.
After law school, Kristin served as a briefing attorney to Justice Charles W. Seymore of the Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. As a law student, Kristin interned with United States District Judge Lynn N. Hughes and Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht.
Representation of a publicly traded exploration and production company in multi-district litigation involving royalty dispute alleging underpayment of royalties on natural gas liquids production.
Representation of a publicly traded oil and gas company in contested case hearing before TCEQ involving air permit application.
Representation of lender in arbitration involving multiple personal guarantees and allegations of lack of mental capacity to contract.
Representation of numerous lenders in deficiency actions against borrowers and guarantors to collect unpaid debt, including subsequent collection of judgments.
Representation of a software development company in an employment incentive compensation dispute in jury trial.
Representation of a fuel and lubricant marketer in arbitration involving a dispute with a former sales representative.
Representation of insurance company in insurance coverage dispute involving rental properties in a bench trial.
Representation of heavy equipment manufacturer in a breach of contract dispute.
Representation of a national retailer in nonsubscriber suits brought by employees claiming workplace injuries.
J.D., Southern Methodist University, Dedman School of Law, 2006
Law Review, Associate Managing Editor
Law Review Best Casenote Award, 2005
Law Review Best Comment Award, 2005
Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg, Germany, Rotary Foundation Ambassadorial Scholar, 2001-2002
B.A., Texas A&M University, Political Science and German, magna cum laude, 2001
Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Justice Charles W. Seymore
Chief Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Texas Supreme Court, 2005
Judge Lynn N. Hughes, United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 2004
Honors & Awards
Winner, Houston Young Lawyers Association Woodrow B. Seals Outstanding Young Lawyer, 2015
Recognized as a Texas Rising Star, Super Lawyers by Thompson Reuters (published in Texas Monthly), 2013-2018
Houston’s Top Lawyers, H Texas, 2014-2015
Texas Bar Foundation, Fellow
Houston Young Lawyers Foundation, Fellow
Southern Methodist University Law Review Best Casenote Award, 2005
Southern Methodist University Law Review Best Comment Award, 2005
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Professional & Community Involvement
State Bar of Texas
Houston Bar Association
Gender Fairness Committee, Co-Chair 2013-2014 & 2019-2020
Houston Young Lawyers Association
Texas Young Lawyers Association
Diversity Committee, 2014-2015
Association of Women Attorneys
Women’s Energy Network
Casenote – Religious Land Use − Eleventh Circuit Broadly Interprets Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 to Leave Local Governments Nearly Powerless to Zone Houses of Worship, 58 SMU L. Rev. 465 (2005).
Comment – Proving Discriminatory Intent in Selective Prosecution Challenges – An Alternative Approach to United States v. Armstrong, 58 SMU L. Rev. 1523 (2005).