Tom Clyde focuses his practice on complex commercial and appellate matters, with an emphasis on representing individuals and organizations accused of wrongdoing because the content of their speech. Mr. Clyde regularly represents print, television, internet, and communications companies in such matters, but also regularly represents non-media organizations in connection with speech-based disputes. He has experience in federal and state courts throughout the Country and regularly advises clients regarding First Amendment rights.
Mr. Clyde has extensive experience in connection with claims alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of intellectual property rights, and newsgathering misconduct. Mr. Clyde also regularly represents internet-based publishers in connection with issues involving privacy, blogging, anonymous speech, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, user generated content, and electronic eavesdropping issues.
In addition to his in-court representation, Mr. Clyde regularly vets content prior to its publication, including print and television news content, fiction and non-fiction books, and controversial internet speech. He also has extensive expertise counseling clients on laws relating to the use of hidden cameras and other related newsgathering techniques.
Mr. Clyde regularly represents clients seeking access to government records and proceedings and clients seeking to unseal court records and to obtain permission to televise court proceedings. He has successfully litigated numerous actions under the Georgia Open Records Act, the Georgia Open Meetings Act, and the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
Mr. Clyde also regularly represents clients in connection with "whistleblower" claims brought under the False Claim Act and related laws. He has experience representing individuals asserting such claims as well as defendants facing allegations of fraudulent submissions to the federal and state government agencies.
Mr. Clyde was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for First Amendment Law and First Amendment Litigation in 2019 and the six years immediately preceding and again in 2020, 2021 and 2022 for Commercial Litigation, First Amendment Law, First Amendment Litigation, and Media Law. He was also named a 2017 and 2019 "Atlanta Lawyer of the Year" in the area of First Amendment Law and a 2022 "Atlanta Lawyer of the Year" in the area of First Amendment Litigation by The Best Lawyers in America®. Mr. Clyde was recognized as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" for First Amendment, Media and Advertising Law in 2012 and 2013, for Constitutional Law in 2014, and again for Media and Advertising Law in 2021 and the six years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine.
Defending a radio group in high-profile invasion of privacy litigation brought by former professional wrestler alleging harm from release of sex tape.
Defended a television studio against claims alleging that a parody segment broadcast in a nationally popular talk show defamed plaintiff and portrayed her in a false light.
Advised and represented media organizations in connection with state legislation that threatened to limit the use of drones in connection with newsgathering.
Defended a television station and its editorial team against defamation claims brought by a senior police official alleging errors in reporting on a controversial fatal shooting.
Defended a Fortune 500 corporation accused of defaming an attorney in connection with anti-fraud procedures implemented as part of a financial transaction.
Defended a television station and its staff against allegations of defamation brought by a plaintiff alleging errors in reporting in violent assault.
Defended radio group in high profile defamation claim arising from website of well-known radio personality.
Represented cable system in claims alleging violation of rights established by retransmission consent agreement.
Represented internet company against claims asserting fraud in distribution of ownership interests.
Defended television station in connection with defamation claims brought by participant in college hazing incident.
Represented a consortium of media companies in seeking access to hearings and trial proceeding in high-profile murder triangle trial.
Represented interests of media and public-interest groups in connection with revision of Georgia Sunshine Laws by Georgia Attorney General and Georgia General Assembly.
Represented book publisher against claims arising from financial misconduct by author.
Represented television studio and talk show host against claims for invasion of privacy and misappropriation based on appearance of minor on talk show.
Insights View All
Duke University School of Law J.D. (1992) with honors
Princeton University A.B. (1988)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
The Georgia First Amendment Foundation, Board Member and Legal Committee Co-Chair
The Georgia Bar Media Judiciary Conference, Organizer
Media Law Resource Center, Internet Law Committee
American Bar Association, First Amendment and Media Litigation Committee, Member
The Georgia Innocence Project, Past Board Member and Board President
The Atlanta Community Toolbank, Past Board Member and Board President
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.