Robert Bryan Barnes

Robert Bryan Barnes

  • Shareholder

Bryan Barnes practices nationally pro hac vice in the area of product liability defense. He often represents manufacturers of exterior claddings in products liability cases throughout the U.S. He also handles toxic torts, construction, and surety and specialty litigation, both in court and in arbitration proceedings.

Bryan served as law clerk for the Honorable James E. Moore, South Carolina Circuit Judge, now retired Senior Associate Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. He also served as law clerk for the Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Bryan is a frequent speaker at continuing education seminars for lawyers and trade groups. He has contributed written materials on construction law issues for the Mechanic’s Lien Bulletin, The Credit Manager’s Survival Kit, and various other trade journals.



  • University of South Carolina, J.D.,1986
  • Furman University, B.A., 1982, Phi Beta Kappa


  • South Carolina Bar
    • Construction Law Section
  • Richland County Bar Association
  • American Bar Association
    • Forum Committee on the Construction Industry
  • South Carolina Defense Trial  Attorneys’ Association
  • Defense Research Institute
  • The Council on Litigation Management

Publications, Speeches & Seminars

Carolinas Construction & Environmental Claims Seminar, March 1, 2013
Host, Speaker and Panelist
Videos from the program
The Economic Loss Rule
Using Experts to Resolve Mass Claims
Technical Mediation
Professional Affidavit Requirements

American Bar Association CLE on premises liability,
“Earth, Wind and Fire: Emerging Issues in Coal Ash Litigation”.

Reported Cases

Archstone v. Tocci Bldg. Corp. of N.J., Inc., Eldorado Stone, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 1059,  956 N.Y.S.2d 496 

In Re: Richardson Construction Inc. v. Giti Tire Manufacturing, (USA) LTD and Alliance Consulting Engineers, Inc. Site Preparation for Giti Tire, 2014 SC CPO LEXIS 70, Case No. 2015-005

In Re: Appeal by Public Consulting Group, Inc. and Request for Review of Determination to Life Automatic Stay by Public Consulting Group, Inc. Case No. 2018-2

Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., et al., v. Ocean Walk Resort Condominium Association, Inc., 86 So.3d 592 (2012) District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. May 4, 2012.

Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 60 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1033 (4th Cir. 2005)

Martin Engineering, Inc. v. Lexington County School Dist. One, 365 S.C. 1, 615 S.E.2d 110, 199 Ed. Law Rep. 963 (2005)

Richland Lex. Airport District v. American Airlines, Inc. No. 3:99-1230-17 (D.S.C. Jan 11, 2002) Aff’d no. 02-1455 (4th Cir. March 25, 2003)

Masterclean, Inc. v. Star Ins. Co., 347 S.C. 405, 556 S.E.2d 371 (2001)

Keeney’s Metal Roofing v. Palmieri, S.C., 548 S.E.2d 900 (Ct. App. 2001)

In Re: Stucco Litigation, 175 F.R.D. 210 (E.D.N.C. 1997)

Lite House v. North River Inc., Co., 316 S.C. 326, 450 S.E.2d 63 (SC App. 1994) affirmed as modified, 322 S.C. 26, 471 S.C. 166 (1996)

Strange v. SCDHPT, 445 S.E.2d 439 S.C. (1994)

Hyde v. DMH, 314 S.C. 207, 442 S.E.2d 582 (1994) (reh. denied)

Lite House v. J.C. Roy Co., Inc., 309 S.C. 50, 419 S.E.2d 817 (SC App. 1992)

Strange v. SCDHPT, 307 S.C. 161, 414 S.E.2d 138 (1992)

News/Press Releases

CAUTION - Before you proceed, please note: Do not send us any confidential information. By clicking “accept” you agree that our review of the information contained in your e-mail and any attachments will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and any lawyer in our firm and will not prevent any lawyer in our firm from representing a party in any matter where that information is relevant, even if you submitted the information in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if that information is highly confidential and could be used against you. Our firm collects debts for mortgage lenders and other creditors. Any information you convey to us will be used for that purpose. However, if you have previously received a discharge in bankruptcy, our response to you should not be construed as an attempt to collect a debt but only as an effort to respond to your inquiry or to enforce a lien against the property.