Fewer than 1 in 10 American attorneys ever earns an AV Preeminent designation from Martindale-Hubbell. Todd Mensing, a Houston lawyer at Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing (AZA), received that designation in June 2016 with a peer review score of 4.9 out of a possible 5.0 in commercial litigation, a figure his firm’s co-founding partner, John Zavitsanos, called unsurprising given what he had witnessed firsthand. For anyone evaluating legal counsel in a commercial dispute, that number carries weight, but only if you understand what produces it.
Martindale-Hubbell has published attorney information since the late 19th century. Its peer review rating component dates to 1887, one of the longest continuously running attorney evaluation programs in the country. Practicing lawyers and judges evaluate one another, a core premise unchanged across every format shift from printed directories to secure online submissions. No advertiser pays to improve a peer review rating, and reviewer identities are kept confidential to encourage candor.
What “AV” Actually Measures
“AV Preeminent” packs two distinct evaluations into two letters. “A” refers to legal ability, rated at the highest possible level on a 1-to-5 scale across five categories: legal knowledge, analytical capabilities, judgment, communication ability, and legal experience. “V” denotes that the reviewed attorney’s peers affirm “very high” ethical standards, covering professional conduct, reliability, and diligence. Both components must clear a threshold simultaneously. An attorney who scores well on the ability categories but falls short on the ethics component will not earn the designation.
That dual requirement separates AV Preeminent from standard directory listings. A directory listing confirms that an attorney holds a license and practices in a stated area. An AV Preeminent rating confirms that other attorneys who have appeared alongside or against this lawyer have weighed in, confidentially, on both their courtroom ability and their professional conduct. Before online legal directories proliferated, Martindale’s rating system was the primary method law firms used to vet unfamiliar counsel in other cities, a fact that speaks to how embedded this credential is in the profession’s evaluation culture.
Todd Mensing’s 4.9 score places him at the near-maximum end of that 1-to-5 range. The June 2016 AZA press release noted that peer reviewers described him as highly able and ethically strong.
Why Fewer Than 10 Percent Qualify
Martindale-Hubbell’s process begins when an attorney submits a list of peer references, practicing lawyers or sitting judges with firsthand knowledge of their work. At least 18 references are recommended. Martindale then sends confidential survey requests to those individuals, who rate the attorney across both the legal ability categories and the ethics component.
That alone is not the complete picture. To guard against self-selection, Martindale independently adds reviewers drawn from its database by geographic location and practice area, attorneys the candidate may or may not know personally. Those surveys go out simultaneously, and both groups’ responses carry equal weight in the final calculation. A lawyer cannot simply pack a submission with favorable contacts.
A confidential threshold of qualified responses must be reached before any rating is assigned. Martindale does not publish that number. What it publishes is the outcome: roughly 1 in 10 American attorneys earns an AV Preeminent designation. Of the three available tiers, AV Preeminent, Distinguished, and Notable, the top designation is difficult to reach not because the eligible pool is small but because the combined standard for legal ability and ethics is high.
Peer review scores at this level are not self-reported credentials and do not follow from membership fees or application payments. John Zavitsanos, co-founding partner at AZA, commented on Mensing’s result in the firm’s June 2016 press release: “Having watched Todd in action in the courtroom and in his dealings with clients and the painstaking tasks of trial preparation, I am not at all surprised he achieved the highest rating.”
Mensing’s State Bar profile shows no public disciplinary history, a baseline that peer reviewers assess separately through the ethics component. His board certification in Civil Trial Law from the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, earned in January 2011, required a written examination, peer references from attorneys and a judge, and documented jury trial experience as lead counsel, with recertification every five years. Martindale asks peers to evaluate quality of work and professional judgment. TBLS certification asks whether a lawyer meets documented standards for trial experience. Each credential answers a different question.
Reading a Rating as a Legal Consumer
Martindale-Hubbell’s own consumer guidance describes the system’s purpose plainly: it exists to help the public make an informed decision when choosing an attorney. A peer review score answers one specific question. It tells a prospective client how lawyers who have worked with or against a given attorney evaluate that attorney’s competence and professional conduct. It does not say whether the attorney has handled a particular case type before, how often, or with what results.
For anyone searching for a Houston lawyer in high-stakes commercial disputes, a 4.9 Martindale score like Todd Mensing’s narrows the field without ending the inquiry. The score confirms peer confidence in legal ability and ethics at the highest available tier. Case volume and case type require separate verification.
Mensing’s broader record addresses both. He was elected to the American Board of Trial Advocates in 2014, an invitation-only organization that requires at least seven civil jury trials as lead counsel and five or more years of active trial practice. Chambers USA clients, surveyed independently of both Martindale-Hubbell and ABOTA, described the Todd Mensing lawyer as “unequalled” among commercial litigators; they also called him “whip smart,” a “brilliant strategist,” and a “great trial lawyer.”
No single credential answers all the questions a legal consumer needs to resolve before retaining an attorney. A Martindale peer review rating documents one dimension of a lawyer’s professional record, and for a Houston commercial litigation lawyer, those ratings alongside the credentials that verify courtroom experience provide a documented basis for an informed evaluation of Todd Mensing.