Pamela D. Williams

Attorney in Houston, TX
Pamela Williams joined Adams and Reese in 2014 as a Partner in the firm's Houston office and as a member of the Labor and Employment practice group. Practicing law since 1992, Pamela is Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. She represents individuals, companies, governmental entities, municipalities, health care organizations, retailers, and manufacturers, in various labor and employment issues.

Pamela has extensive experience handling complex litigation and class actions, in addition to providing routine guidance and day-to-day counseling for clients. She has defended municipalities, governmental entities, and private employers against statutory claims, such as Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Fair Labor Standards Act and Family and Medical Leave Act. She also has drafted employment hand books, policies and procedures, separation agreements, employment agreements, confidentiality agreements, and covenants not to compete, for businesses, and provided client training, regarding discrimination, retaliation, and wage/hour issues.

Pamela formerly worked as in-house counsel for a major retailer, where she was largely responsible for managing the litigation needs of the company, and she now serves as outside counsel.

Pamela's additional representative experience includes:

· Defended retailers in Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, Americans with Disabilities Act claim, and religious discrimination claim
· Defended health care provider in gender and retaliation claim
· Defended governmental entity in Title VII racial discrimination class action
· Defended national homebuilder in workers' compensation retaliation claim

Pamela is an active member of the Houston Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section; State Bar of Texas, Labor and Employment Section; Texas Board of Legal Specialization, Labor and Employment; and Jefferson County Bar Association.

Pamela earned her J.D. from University of Houston Law Center, 1992, and she received her B.A. from Vassar College, in 1986.

Other DistinctionsCertified in Labor and Employment, Texas Board of Legal Specialization


The Road to Termination: Practical Tips for Avoiding Costly Litigation - 2014 Gulf Coast Symposium on HR Issues 5/15/2014

Newsletters / Alerts

OSHA Issues New Guidance for Consumer Credit Whistleblowers 5/7/2014

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info
Rating Not Shown

Areas of Law

  • Labor and Employment
  • Class Action / Complex Litigation
  • Litigation
  • Construction
  • Government
  • Health Care
  • Medical
  • Retail / Consumer Products


Peer Rating

Rating Not Shown
This lawyer has chosen not to display the rating(s) provided by his or her peers.

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 1992, Texas
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
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

Law School Attended

University of Houston Law Center
Class of 1992

University Attended

Vassar College
Class of 1986

Associations & Memberships

Professional Memberships / AffiliationsThe State Bar of Texas, Labor and Employment Section
Houston Bar Association, Labor and Employment Section
Jefferson Cou... More

Contact Information






Send email to Pamela D. Williams

Office Information
Pamela D. Williams
LyondellBasell Tower 1221 McKinney, Suite 4400,
Houston, TX 77010


Adams and Reese LLP (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.