700 Louisiana Street Suite 4300, Houston, TX USA 77002
With more than three decades of experience, Pat Gaas is regularly engaged by owners, contractors, and design professionals to handle some of the largest and most challenging commercial and industrial construction disputes and transactions both nationally and internationally, including workouts, document preparation, administrative proceedings, litigation, mediation, and arbitration. In addition, Pat handles or manages a broad variety of other matters for a select group of clients, including financial institutions, doing business both domestically and abroad.
Before joining Kilpatrick Townsend, Pat was a Shareholder and Director of a well-established law firm, where he served as Section Head in the Houston, Texas office in its construction practice group, then regarded as one of the largest and most accomplished on the Gulf Coast.
Pat has presented seminars to the American Bar Association, the Texas Bar Association, and many client groups with topics ranging from litigation strategy, project delivery methods, and construction, design and/or procurement contract provisions, to suretyship, lien laws, and insurance issues.
For many years, Pat has been recognized by Super Lawyers in the field of Construction Law. He has been listed for many consecutive years in The Best Lawyers in America® for Construction Law, most recently in the 2023 edition. He is listed in the 2022 and the four years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business in the area of Construction. Pat was recommended by Legal 500 US in 2018, 2019 and 2022 for Construction Litigation. He is rated AV Preeminent® by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Representing an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) Contractor in a “claw back” dispute having an amount in controversy approximating $1 billion with chemical plant owner, involving competing claims over the design, procurement, and construction of the largest and most complex Propane Development Unit (PDU) facility in the world, with a cost approaching $3 billion.
Representing municipality sued by a general contractor for delay and other damages in a dispute arising from the construction of a new $50 million wastewater treatment plant in place of an existing one. The total damages differential claimed in the case is approximately $36 million.
Represented an EPC contractor in providing advice and document review of Front End Engineering and Design and EPC contracts, together with the related third party financing documents required of the contractor, for construction of an industrial plant facility incorporating two C3 Oleflex Process units and one UOP Huels Selective Hydrogenation Process unit with a combined production capacity of 1,020,000 metric tons per annum of polymer grade propylene and chemical grade propylene.
Lead trial counsel for EPC Contractor in International Arbitration (Helsinki, Finland) with Subcontractor arising out of the design and construction of two peat fired electrical power plants located in Ireland. The amount in controversy approximately 20,000,000 Euros; the length of arbitration hearing was approximately 50 days.
Represented an EPC contractor in International Arbitration (London, England) with owner regarding delay and extra work claims regarding two power plants located in former Soviet Union. The amount in controversy approximately 100,000,000 Euros; the length of arbitration hearing was approximately six weeks.
Lead trial counsel for non-destructive examination contractor in lawsuit with pipeline operator arising out of the remediation of a 31-mile natural gas pipeline in Ohio and Indiana. The amount in controversy approximately $60,000,000; the length of jury trial was approximately five weeks.
Represented an international chemical company in defense of contractor’s delay, productivity and other claims arising out of construction of air separation plant. The revised claim was alleged to be approximately $11,000,000, exclusive of fees and costs; the length of arbitration hearing was approximately two months.
Represented an EPC Contractor in a contract dispute involving basic engineering design and front end engineering design services for all process and auxiliary units, utilities, interconnecting pipe and all other facilities and associated integration, including technical assistance services for two premium refineries in Brazil, with capacities of 600,000 BPD and 300,000 BPD, respectively.
Represented an EPC Contractor in a contract dispute involving alleged defects in the fabrication of refractory for furnaces of a delayed coking unit, and arising from conduct as a procurement agent for owner and as the project manager for the Delayed Coking Facility portion of the Modernization Project.
Insights View All
University of Texas School of Law J.D. (1988) with honors
Texas A&M University B.B.A. (1985) cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
U.S. Supreme Court
American Bar Association, Forum Committee on Construction Industry
State Bar of Texas, Construction and Insurance Sections
Houston Bar Association, Construction and Litigation Sections
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. – Houston Chapter
Associated Builders and Contractors of America, Industrial Committee, Government Relations Committee, and PAC Member
Construction Lawyers Society of America, Charter Fellow
Trial Law Institute, Member
Diversity Law Institute, Member
Order of Maximus, Barrister
Institute of Transnational Arbitration, Member of the Advisory Board
Litigation Counsel of America, Senior Fellow
London Court of International Arbitration, Member
Texas Bar Foundation, Fellow
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.