Contact Information

Phone: 713.654.5822
Fax:    713.654.5801
Download vCard

Professional Biography

Gavin Uttecht came to work for Fulkerson Lotz LLP as a law clerk in September of 2012.  Gavin became a licensed attorney in November of 2012 and served as of counsel to the firm; Gavin became an Associate in January of 2018.

Gavin represents both plaintiffs and defendants in business negotiations, trials, arbitrations and appeals.  His practice centers on complex commercial litigation, including business disputes, trade secrets, joint venture and partnership disputes, oil and gas litigation and employment disputes.

During his time at Fulkerson Lotz, Gavin has handled legal research, motions and briefs, assessed potential cases, and assembled documents for hearings and trials.  He has also participated in depositions, settlement negotiations, attended hearings, attended trials, and supported the partners and attorneys in the firm in all aspects of case development and trial.


St. Mary’s University School of Law, J.D., 2012

  • Dean’s List, 2010
  • St. Mary’s Student Bar Association
  • Institute on Chinese Law and Business, Beihang University, Beijing, China

Texas A&M University, B.A. History, 2008

  • Public Policy Internship Program with Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Admissions to Practice

  • State of Texas
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
  • Federal Court of Claims
  • Fifth Circuit

Professional Organizations

  • State Bar of Texas
  • Texas Young Lawyers Association
  • American Bar Association
  • Houston Bar Association
  • Houston Young Lawyers Association

Personal Biography

Gavin Uttecht was born and raised in Houston, Texas. He attended Langham Creek High School where he was an active participant on the varsity swim team and the marching band.  Gavin also began to coach competitive swimming which he pursued through law school. Gavin coached for several different teams and learned the importance and essential skill of communicating with people. After high school Gavin went on to Texas A&M University and was accepted in the Public Policy Internship Program where he worked as a legislative analyst and mediator between the Comptroller and Texas legislators. In addition to coaching, Gavin was a Senator for the Student Bar Association at St. Mary’s Law School. Gavin’s goal was always to become an attorney.

Razien v. Micro Focus (US) Inc. (2018). We successfully defended our client in an employment case in which we were able to have the suit against our client dismissed and the dismissal upheld on appeal.

Slagle v. Texas Truck Lines, Inc. (2018). We successfully defended our client in a DTPA action. We obtained a summary judgment in our clients favor.

McKee v. D.R. Horton Texas Ltd. (2017). We successfully represented a home buyer in an arbitration regarding construction defects in the home.

Lacima, Inc. d/b/a TruckNation v. Texas Truck Lines, et al (2017). We represented our client against a competitor alleging trademark infringement and cybersquatting. We successfully negotiated a confidential settlement agreement.

Fisher Construction, LLC v. Kirton (2017). We represented our client in a breach of contract dispute. We were able to successfully negotiate a settlement and dismissal of the claims.

JB Oil & Gas LLC v. Titan Downhole Tools (2016). We represented our client in a counterclaim. We successfully negotiated a confidential settlement agreement and dismissal of the suit.

Shannon N. Goodie v. The Attachmate Group, d/b/a Microfocus (2014-2016). We successfully defended our client in an employment case in which we were able to have the suit against our client dismissed.

DF Vimarc, Inc. v. Vimarc, Inc., et al (2015). We represented the exclusive distributor of an industrial vibrating motor in suit against manufacturer of the motor for breach of contract and misrepresentations. Client achieved a confidential settlement on the third day of trial.

Gyrodata v. Inland Environmental and Remediation, Inc. (2015-2016). We successfully represented our client in a collections case and were able to negotiate and settle the matter in a way that would allow our client to be paid in full and allow the debtor to remain in business.

Taylor Construction, LLC v. Gyrodata (2015-2016). We successfully represented our client in an alleged breach of contract with regard to a lease. We were able to reach a confidential settlement.

Trainer v. Gregory Sippel d/b/a Lonestar Deco (2014). We successfully represented our client in a collections case and negotiated a settlement that had our client paid in full.

Pete Altimore, et al vs. USCA Securities, LLC, US Capital Advisors LLC and USCA RIA, LLC (2013-2014). We represented 19 retired Exxon Mobil employees in claims for mismanagement of their retirement savings account by their financial advisor. After a seven day FINRA arbitration hearing, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Claimants.

Cecala v. Johnson (2013). We represented a client pro-bono in a small claims matter regarding an ATV accident. We successfully negotiated a settlement and had a release signed for our client.

Caseta Sellers v. Telvent (2011-2013). We obtained a $9.2 million arbitration award (net of fees) for our clients in connection with the sale of an electronic tolling business to a Spanish conglomerate. See Award.

Gyrodata v. Aleman (2012-2013). We represented Gyrodata in claims for breach of contract and unlawful removal of oilfield equipment leased for down-hole services. We obtained summary judgment, a declaratory judgment confirming Gyrodata’s ownership of the equipment, plus an award of damages, attorney fees, and interest.

Disclaimer: The cases listed in this website reference actual result histories but are not reflective of results in every case we handle. No attorneys, including our firm, can guarantee any particularly favorable outcome from litigation. All of the results reported in this website are of gross recoveries, not net to the client. In cases in which we are retained on a contingent fee basis, recoveries are reduced by the amount of litigation expenses and the contingent fee in connection with these cases (typically from 20 to 40%), depending on the nature of the engagement.