Alex Bullock, an experienced trial and appellate attorney, represents clients on a variety of matters including cases with a focus on environmental and agricultural litigation. These matters include claims for environmental nuisance and trespass, defense of Clean Water Act enforcement matters, solid and hazardous waste contamination, environmental personal injury actions, environmental property damage claims, professional liability (defense) actions, insurance recovery litigation, and product liability claims. From a regulatory perspective, Mr. Bullock counsels a variety of clients regarding environmental compliance, food safety, California Proposition 65 (Prop 65), and insurance coverage issues.
Mr. Bullock received one of the first joint LL.M. degrees from environmental and international law programs of The George Washington University Law School. His thesis addressed the emerging concept of sustainable development in international law and suggested a strategy by which governments, private enterprise, and public interest groups could work in a cooperative manner to create sustainable economic growth.
Mr. Bullock was recognized in 2022 and the nine years immediately preceding as a Washington D.C. “Super Lawyer” in the area of Environmental Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. He is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
Represent a number of entities related to a large livestock producer in Tennessee and Kentucky all of whom were defendants in a multi-count class action nuisance, trespass, battery, and negligence lawsuit pending in federal court in the Western District of Kentucky. The trial court dismissed all counts at the summary judgment stage, and the remaining private nuisance claims are proceeding to trial. The same client has also retained the firm to represent it in a related case involving insurance coverage for environmental claims. That case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.
Represented a major livestock producer located in Illinois in a public and private nuisance lawsuit filed in Illinois state court. The plaintiffs alleged that the client's largest livestock facility was both a public and private nuisance. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings. Following a three-week trial, the jury returned a defense verdict on all of the private nuisance claims. The Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed both the summary judgment regarding public nuisance and the jury’s verdict regarding private nuisance.
Represented a major livestock producer located in Illinois in an insurance coverage declaratory judgment action filed by the client’s insurance carrier. Following an extended discovery and extensive briefing, the trial court ruled that the insurance carrier owed a duty to defend under several insurance policies and ordered the company to pay our client for the fees and costs associated with defending the nuisance lawsuit.
Provided regulatory guidance and counseling to a large grain producer regarding the presence of a naturally occurring contaminant in grain and grain products, including issues related to California Proposition 65.
Provided advice to various clients regarding hazardous allergen warning labels and recalls based upon the presence of undeclared allergens in food products.
Represented a major manufacturer of large equipment in an asbestos related wrongful death lawsuit. Successfully resolved the case through a de minimus settlement.
Successfully defended the water and wastewater utility division of a major national real estate development company in Clean Water Act enforcement action brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Represented commercial seed farmers and their agricultural trade association who were sued in Idaho state court in a nuisance and trespass class action for injuries allegedly related to large scale agricultural burning. Successfully obtained a writ of mandamus reversing trial court preliminary injunction from Idaho Supreme Court.
Represented a global provider of information technology services and programs in multiple environmental insurance coverage cases addressing soil and groundwater contamination from legacy manufacturing facilities.
Represent a major forest products company in asbestos multiple wrongful death lawsuits.
Insights View All
George Washington University LL.M. (1997)
University of South Carolina J.D. (1985)
Furman University B.A. (1982) Political Science
District of Columbia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
U.S. Supreme Court
District of Columbia Brownfields Redevelopment Action Team (1999-2000)
Georgetown Ministry Center, Board of Directors (2008-2020)
Georgetown Presbyterian Church Session (2008-2010), Personnel Committee Chair (2002-2003, 2009-2010)
Georgetown Presbyterian Church Board of Deacons, Vice-Moderator (1999), Community Outreach Committee Co-Chair (1998), and Homeless Shelter Project Co-Chair (1998-1999)
Potomac Plaza Apartments Cooperative Board of Directors, Former President (2002-2004) and Vice-President (2002-2004)
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.