header image
880 Montclair Road Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35213
Amy Jackson
Legal Assistant
bio image Brian M. McClendon

Brian is a Shareholder with LGWM and practices in LGWM's Architects and Engineers and Environmental Law Practice Groups. Brian's practice consists of defending architects, engineers and design builders in industrial, commercial and residential construction disputes throughout the Southeast United States. Brian also defends environmental tort claims on behalf of engineers, general contractors, chemical corporations and other entities involved in manufacturer or distribution of hazardous materials.

Professional Profile
  • Member, Alabama Bar Association
  • Member, Tennessee Bar Association
  • Board of Directors, The Hope for Autumn Foundation
  • All Alabama State Courts
  • United States District Courts for the Northern, Middle and Southern Districts of Alabama
  • All Tennessee State Courts
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
University of Alabama School of Law, J.D. (2001)

Auburn University, B.A., Political Science (1997)
  • Defended synthetic fuel facility against claim that coal dust residue was allowed to migrate off-site, which caused both property damage and personal injury, including lunch cancer which caused Plaintiff’s death during the litigation. We successfully argued there was no evidence Defendant allowed coal dust to migrate off-site and no evidence Plaintiffs’ injuries were a result of exposure to coal dust. After establishing these facts, we were able to negotiate a reasonable settlement and dismissal of all claims against Defendant.
  • Defended colorant manufacturer in claims it failed to warn Plaintiffs of dangers associated with exposure to its colorant. Plaintiffs claimed the colorant used to manufacture colored gardening mulch were hazardous and caused respiratory injuries. We argued that any hazards associated with the colorant had been properly disclosed on the Manufacturer’s Safety Data Sheet included with the colorant and Defendant could not legally be held responsible for the third-party’s failure to include the warning on its mulch packing. The Court agreed and granted summary judgment.
  • Defendant a geotechnical engineer accused of improperly testing a soil additive used to prepare the site of a large scale retail development. The soil additive allegedly had expansive properties that caused massive damage to the construction. We successfully established the contractor changed soil additives during construction without notifying the design team and the new product was actually responsible for the damage.
  • Defended an engineer accused of improperly inspecting and testing post tension tendons used in the construction of a high-rise condominium development. The failure of the tendons allegedly resulted in massive cracking throughout the slabs. We successfully established the cracking was not related to the tendons and the claimant voluntarily dismissed its claims.
  • Defended a structural engineer against claims the structural design of a high rise condominium building in Memphis, TN was flawed and resulted in increased costs to remediate the problems. The high rise condominium project was eventually abandoned, allegedly as a result of the cost increased. We successfully argued the increased costs were the result of construction defects and unrelated change orders.
  • Defended an engineer in claims arising from the conversion of an apartment building to a condominium. The Condominium Owner’s Association alleged the engineer failed to identify multiple defects that affected the remaining useful life of various building components. We successfully argued the alleged defects were outside the scope of the inspection or were the result of normal wear and tear that occurred after the inspection.
  • Defended an architect whose alleged defective design resulted in additional costs and delays to construction of three schools. We successfully argued the majority of the additional costs and delays were the result of construction defects that required remediation during construction.
  • Defended an environmental engineer accused of using improper techniques and equipment to remediate leaking underground gasoline and diesel fuel tanks beneath a service station. We successfully argued the methods used by the engineer met the industry standards and were able to resolve the case for a nominal amount.
  • Defended a valve distributor in regard to claims the product was improperly calibrated and a dangerous chemicals leaked as a result. We successfully established the damages sought were excessive and the leak was actually the result of a defective process design.
  • We defended a geotechnical engineer whose alleged defective subsurface exploration led to a wastewater lagoon draining into the Tennessee River. We successfully argued the exploration met the industry standard of care and the damages sought were subject to an enforceable limit of liability.
  • We defended a steel contractor responsible for the design and installation of an elevated walkway that collapsed during construction. We successfully prosecuted the contractor’s indemnity claims against subcontractors and suppliers and were able to shift the majority of liability to other parties.