Bringing a passion for serving justice and working diligently on behalf of my clients, I draw on an array of strengths to advance their interests and, ultimately, help enhance their lives. They include strong research and writing skills, the ability to craft novel and effective legal arguments, and the determination to comb through all the nuanced details of a case, which often uncovers its legal linchpin. I enjoy—and understand the importance of—the intersection that connects the complexities of the law with human dynamics.
Texas, 2019
Wisconsin, 2017
Houston Young Lawyers Association
Houston Bar Association
Houston Bar Association Litigation Section
Houston Bar Association Appellate Section
University of Wisconsin Law School, J.D. cum laude, 2017
Managing Editor, Wisconsin Law Review
Eastern Illinois University, B.S. Applied Engineering & Technology, 2014
Top 20 Verdict of 2023, TopVerdict
Texas Rising Stars, 2024-present
Law Clerk to the Hon. Kevin G. Ross, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2017-2018
Law Clerk to the Hon. Michael Massengale and the Hon. Richard Hightower, First Court of Appeals, 2018-2019
Burford Perry represented a fuel-additive manufacturer serving the global commercial-shipping industry in trade-secret and restrictive-covenant litigation against a former executive, his competing company, and former sales personnel. After years of jurisdictional litigation across Texas and Nevada (including appeals to both states’ highest courts and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court) the case was tried to a Nevada court, which found for the client on every major claim, including trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, and awarded $9.14 million in lost-profit damages, with additional requests for prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees later granted, bringing total recover in excess of $15.8 million.
Burford Perry represented a co-founder and minority owner of a medical testing laboratory in a high-stakes AAA arbitration concerning ownership, internal governance, disputed distributions, self-dealing, and alleged improper expulsion from the company. After a week-long final hearing, the arbitrator rejected all counterclaims and awarded more than $7.45 million in the client’s favor, including damages for his ownership interest, fiduciary breaches, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
Burford Perry represented a company owner, individually and derivatively on behalf of a limited liability company, in fiduciary-duty and corporate-governance litigation against the company’s CEO and co-owner. After a two-week jury trial, the firm secured a $54 million judgment, and later defended the judgment in post-judgment supersedeas proceedings involving complex securities-law and equity-valuation issues, resulting in a $147 million net-worth finding and a $25 million bond requirement that were upheld by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court.
Burford Perry served as appellate counsel in a series of successful appeals involving the limits of a receiver’s authority to act on behalf of entities that were not judgment debtors. The appeals arose from efforts to settle claims and transfer real property in which the affected entities held substantial equity, and multiple courts of appeals reversed trial-court rulings favoring the receiver, with the Texas Supreme Court denying review in one of the related proceedings.
Burford Perry represented a minority equity owner of a successful Houston restaurant in an ownership and control dispute involving alleged freeze-out conduct, denial of access to company records, and withheld profit distributions. After three days of trial, the parties reached a binding in-court settlement requiring defendants to pay $1.65 million to redeem the client’s equity interest, with payment protections including an injunction, operating-revenue payment structure, limits on profit withdrawals, financial-record access, and oversight by a special master and independent CPA.
Burford Perry represents a Texas trucking company and three executives in a bet-the-company putative federal class action under the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, involving alleged payment, deduction, insurance, disclosure, breach-of-contract, and fraud theories. Shortly after suit was filed, plaintiffs sought emergency Rule 23(d) and temporary restraining order relief that would have placed key operational decisions and driver communications under judicial supervision, but the firm secured denial of the TRO with no injunction entered, preserving the client’s operational flexibility going into class certification.
Outside of practice, Zachary enjoys spending time with his wife and children, woodworking, working with computers, and experimenting with practical technology tools that make legal work more efficient.
Zachary Carlson represents businesses, owners, executives, and stakeholders in complex commercial disputes, with a practice focused on high-stakes litigation, governance and ownership disputes, trade-secret and restrictive-covenant matters, and appeals.
Zachary’s work often sits at the intersection of litigation strategy and business risk. He helps clients evaluate not only the legal merits of a dispute, but also the practical consequences for ownership rights, business operations, competitive position, settlement leverage, and long-term risk. His experience spans trial-court litigation, arbitration, post-judgment proceedings, and appeal, giving him a broad view of how decisions made early in a dispute can shape outcomes later.
Clients rely on Zachary for clear written advocacy, careful legal analysis, and practical judgment in complex matters. He has experience developing case strategy, briefing dispositive and appellate issues, managing discovery-heavy disputes, preparing witnesses, working with and developing experts, and helping clients translate complicated legal and factual issues into practical business decisions.
Zachary has handled matters involving business divorce, fiduciary duties, corporate governance, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, commercial contracts, regulated business relationships, construction and real-estate disputes, securities-related issues, and judgment enforcement.
Before joining Burford Perry, Zachary served as a briefing attorney at the First Court of Appeals in Houston and as a judicial clerk on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Those experiences continue to inform his approach to motion practice, preservation, appellate strategy, and written advocacy.
PRACTICE AREAS
FIRM NEWS AND INSIGHTS
FIRM NEWS AND INSIGHTS
Zachary Carlson represents businesses, owners, executives, and stakeholders in complex commercial disputes, with a practice focused on high-stakes litigation, governance and ownership disputes, trade-secret and restrictive-covenant matters, and appeals.
Zachary’s work often sits at the intersection of litigation strategy and business risk. He helps clients evaluate not only the legal merits of a dispute, but also the practical consequences for ownership rights, business operations, competitive position, settlement leverage, and long-term risk. His experience spans trial-court litigation, arbitration, post-judgment proceedings, and appeal, giving him a broad view of how decisions made early in a dispute can shape outcomes later.
Clients rely on Zachary for clear written advocacy, careful legal analysis, and practical judgment in complex matters. He has experience developing case strategy, briefing dispositive and appellate issues, managing discovery-heavy disputes, preparing witnesses, working with and developing experts, and helping clients translate complicated legal and factual issues into practical business decisions.
Zachary has handled matters involving business divorce, fiduciary duties, corporate governance, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, commercial contracts, regulated business relationships, construction and real-estate disputes, securities-related issues, and judgment enforcement.
Before joining Burford Perry, Zachary served as a briefing attorney at the First Court of Appeals in Houston and as a judicial clerk on the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Those experiences continue to inform his approach to motion practice, preservation, appellate strategy, and written advocacy.
Houston Young Lawyers Association
Houston Bar Association
Houston Bar Association Litigation Section
Houston Bar Association Appellate Section
University of Wisconsin Law School, J.D. cum laude, 2017
Managing Editor, Wisconsin Law Review
Eastern Illinois University, B.S. Applied Engineering & Technology, 2014
Top 20 Verdict of 2023, TopVerdict
Texas Rising Stars, 2024-present
Law Clerk to the Hon. Kevin G. Ross, Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2017-2018
Law Clerk to the Hon. Michael Massengale and the Hon. Richard Hightower, First Court of Appeals, 2018-2019
Outside of practice, Zachary enjoys spending time with his wife and children, woodworking, working with computers, and experimenting with practical technology tools that make legal work more efficient.
Texas, 2019
Wisconsin, 2017
Burford Perry represented a fuel-additive manufacturer serving the global commercial-shipping industry in trade-secret and restrictive-covenant litigation against a former executive, his competing company, and former sales personnel. After years of jurisdictional litigation across Texas and Nevada (including appeals to both states’ highest courts and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court) the case was tried to a Nevada court, which found for the client on every major claim, including trade-secret misappropriation, breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment, and awarded $9.14 million in lost-profit damages, with additional requests for prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees later granted, bringing total recover in excess of $15.8 million.
Burford Perry represented a co-founder and minority owner of a medical testing laboratory in a high-stakes AAA arbitration concerning ownership, internal governance, disputed distributions, self-dealing, and alleged improper expulsion from the company. After a week-long final hearing, the arbitrator rejected all counterclaims and awarded more than $7.45 million in the client’s favor, including damages for his ownership interest, fiduciary breaches, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.
Burford Perry represented a company owner, individually and derivatively on behalf of a limited liability company, in fiduciary-duty and corporate-governance litigation against the company’s CEO and co-owner. After a two-week jury trial, the firm secured a $54 million judgment, and later defended the judgment in post-judgment supersedeas proceedings involving complex securities-law and equity-valuation issues, resulting in a $147 million net-worth finding and a $25 million bond requirement that were upheld by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court.
Burford Perry served as appellate counsel in a series of successful appeals involving the limits of a receiver’s authority to act on behalf of entities that were not judgment debtors. The appeals arose from efforts to settle claims and transfer real property in which the affected entities held substantial equity, and multiple courts of appeals reversed trial-court rulings favoring the receiver, with the Texas Supreme Court denying review in one of the related proceedings.
Burford Perry represented a minority equity owner of a successful Houston restaurant in an ownership and control dispute involving alleged freeze-out conduct, denial of access to company records, and withheld profit distributions. After three days of trial, the parties reached a binding in-court settlement requiring defendants to pay $1.65 million to redeem the client’s equity interest, with payment protections including an injunction, operating-revenue payment structure, limits on profit withdrawals, financial-record access, and oversight by a special master and independent CPA.
Burford Perry represents a Texas trucking company and three executives in a bet-the-company putative federal class action under the Truth-in-Leasing regulations, involving alleged payment, deduction, insurance, disclosure, breach-of-contract, and fraud theories. Shortly after suit was filed, plaintiffs sought emergency Rule 23(d) and temporary restraining order relief that would have placed key operational decisions and driver communications under judicial supervision, but the firm secured denial of the TRO with no injunction entered, preserving the client’s operational flexibility going into class certification.
