Steve M. Pharr

Steve M. Pharr


Pharr Law, PLLC

Recognized since 2013

Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Practice Areas

Construction Law

Litigation - Construction

Spinning circle Big letter B

Mr. Pharr has appeared in construction litigation in over thirty states. His construction litigation firm, Pharr Law, PLLC, represents design professionals, contractors and building material manufacturers in multiparty lawsuits involving all building types.

Contact & Links

Location

  • 410 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
    Winston-Salem, NC 27101

Languages

  • English
  • French

Education

  • University of Virginia , J.D., graduated 1985
  • Davidson College, BA, graduated 1975

Bar Admissions

  • North Carolina, North Carolina State Bar
  • South Carolina, South Carolina Bar

Affiliations

  • American Bar Association - Forum on the Construction Industry
  • American Institute of Architects - Allied Individual Member
  • Forsyth County Bar Association - Member
  • North Carolina Bar Association - Construction Law Section, Past Chair, Past Editor of The Change Order

Court Admissions

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • United States District Court Eastern District of North Carolina
  • United States District Court Western District of North Carolina
  • United States District Court Middle District of North Carolina
  • United States District Court District of South Carolina
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for First Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for Fourth Circuit

Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2023 for work in:

  • Construction Law
  • Litigation - Construction

Special Focus

  • Architects and Engineers

Awards:

  • Business North Carolina Magazine-Legal Elite Construction Law
  • North Carolina Super Lawyers-Construction Law
  • Martindale-Hubbell Rating: AV Preeminent**
  • North Carolina Top Rated Lawyer in Construction Law
  • Best Lawyers in America in Construction Law and Litigation

Pepper v. Lancaster

Pepper v. Lancaster was a six-week jury trial which was a test case for the national synthetic stucco (EIFS) litigation. Mr. Pharr represented a window manufacturer whose windows allegedly contributed to moisture infiltration. After the case was tried for six weeks, the client was dismissed on a directed verdict.

Faison v. Client Architect

Faison v. Client Architect was a two-week jury trial in which a commercial developer claimed that his project architect misinterpreted signage provisions resulting in several million dollars of commercial damages. After two hours of deliberation, the jury came back with a defense verdict and an award to the client architect for past due fees.

Ballantyne v. Client Architect

Ballantyne v. Client Architect involved a mixed-use upscale commercial development where the owner/developer claimed dozens of design errors leading to several million dollars in losses. Following a nearly week-long arbitration, the arbitrator ordered the architect to pay less than $10,000, but ordered the developer to pay the client architect $250,000 in past due fees.

Your browser is not fully compatible with our automatic printer friendly formatting.

Please use the print button to print this profile page.

Spinning circle Big letter B