Recognized since 2013
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Litigation - Construction
Contact & Links
- Lawyer Page: http://www.pharrlaw.com/pharr_steve_pharr.htm
- 410 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
- University of Virginia , J.D., graduated 1985
- Davidson College, BA, graduated 1975
- North Carolina, North Carolina State Bar
- South Carolina, South Carolina Bar
- 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
- 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
- Architects and Engineers
- 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. LancasterPepper 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 ArchitectFaison 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 ArchitectBallantyne 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.