John W. Havins

Attorney in Houston, TX
Since 1982, Mr. Havins has tried cases in federal and state courts located in Texas and Louisiana. He has also arbitrated cases before the American Arbitration Association. Houston judges and attorneys have rated Mr. Havins' legal skills and ethics as excellent. Mr. Havins is admitted to practice before all Texas state courts, the United States District Courts for the Southern, Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Tax Court.
Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Business Litigation
  • Business Divorce Litigation
  • Shareholder Disputes
  • Noncompete Litigation
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Oil and Gas Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Toxic Tort Defense
  • Insurance Agents and Brokers Defense
  • Trial Practice


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1982, Texas
U.S. District Court, Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Tax Court

Law School Attended

University of Houston Law Center
Class of 1982

University Attended

Harvard University
Class of 1979
A.B., History

Birth Information

Born in 1956
Lubbock, Texas

Associations & Memberships

Houston Bar Association; State Bar of Texas.

Contact Information






Send email to John W. Havins

Social Networking

Office Information
John W. Havins
 2211 Norfolk St., Suite 525,
Houston, TX 77098


Havins & Associates, PC (Houston, Texas)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.