Michael Tyler focuses his practice on commercial litigation, franchise litigation, products liability and land use litigation. He has extensive experience representing significant corporate clients in a wide variety of cases in federal and state courts both at the trial and appellate level.
Mr. Tyler has represented companies in a broad range of business litigation matters, including contractual disputes and business torts. He has represented both national and regional franchisors in prosecuting and defending claims involving franchisees. He has also successfully represented numerous companies in land use matters involving substantial condemnation and zoning claims. Additionally, he has defended national and international companies in products liability cases.
Mr. Tyler was named to Georgia Trend's "Legal Elite" list and "Who's Who in Atlanta" by the Atlanta Business Chronicle. He is the recipient of the Gate City Bar Association's Outstanding Lawyer Award and was inducted into the Gate City Bar Hall of Fame. Mr. Tyler is a recipient of the 13th Annual Justice Robert Benham Award for Community Service presented by the State Bar of Georgia and Chief Judge’s Commission on Professionalism. He was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation in 2021 and the eight years immediately preceding. Mr. Tyler was recognized in 2020 and the seven years immediately preceding as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in the area of Business Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. He is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Served as lead counsel for an athletic training facility franchisor and approximately 14 of its current and former officers and directors in a suit brought by several former franchisees for fraud and breach of the franchise agreements. The plaintiffs alleged millions in damages. The client’s insurance carrier initially resisted providing coverage, arguing that the equivalent of five separate deductibles must be paid before any obligation to fund defense costs arose. The insurance carrier also claimed that other provisions in the policy precluded coverage. We convinced the insurance carrier to apply a single deductible, saving our clients hundreds of thousands of dollars, and to advance attorneys’ fees to defend the suit. We successfully reached a settlement agreement favorable to our client pursuant to a mediation following extensive discovery and the filing of dispositive motions.
Served as lead counsel for a Fortune 100 global telecommunications company in numerous state and federal land use cases pertaining to telecommunications infrastructure.
Served as defense counsel for a national building and construction products manufacturer in landmark asbestos property damage litigation.
Served as lead defense counsel for an international automotive manufacturer in products liability litigation.
Served as defense counsel for a global telecommunications company in seminal Georgia cell phone health effects litigation.
Represented one of the world's largest chains of office supply stores when Georgia Department of Transportation filed an eminent domain action to acquire property needed for a new bridge project near one of their offices. This action ultimately became the largest condemnation case in Georgia DOT history. Among the named condemnees was our client, which at the time operated its highest-grossing store in metro Atlanta. The condemnation effectively eliminated access to our client's store. Our client took the position that the condemnation forced it to close its most profitable store in Atlanta and to open a replacement store in a less favorable location. The Georgia DOT countered that our client would likely recoup most of its lost sales at other stores. Following extensive discovery, mediation, and pretrial hearings the parties reached a settlement. Consent judgment was entered in favor of our client.
Served as lead counsel for the City of Atlanta in an airport equipment storage fee dispute with a contractor that included significant contractual and constitutional claims. The matter was settled favorably for the City of Atlanta after extensive discovery and summary judgment rulings favorable to the City.
Insights View All
Harvard Law School J.D. (1981)
Harvard University M.P.A. (1981)
Morehouse College B.A. (1977) summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - James C. Hill
American Bar Association Forum on Franchising
State Bar of Georgia, Franchise and Distribution Law Section
State Bar of Georgia, Franchise Section, Member-at-Large
Southeast Franchise Forum
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Former Board Chairman
Atlanta Zoning Review Board, Former Vice-Chairman
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, Former Board Member
The Piedmont Park Conservancy, Board Vice-Chairman
Providence Manor Development Corp., Board President
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Board Member and Former Vice-Chairman
The National Black Arts Festival, Former Board Vice-Chairman
The Children's School, Former Board Vice-Chairman
The Atlanta Urban League, Former Board Member
State Bar of Georgia Disciplinary Board, Former Member
The Gate City Bar Association, Former Vice-President
Covenant House Georgia, Board Member
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.