Simon Bailey is an experienced litigator who has represented clients in a variety of matters, including consumer protection cases, product liability cases, and commercial cases involving insurers, banks, accountants, and other professionals. He has participated in litigation across the country at the trial and appellate stages and has developed a reputation for both his written and oral advocacy. He has been recognized by Chambers USA and The Best Lawyers in America® as one of Mississippi’s top litigators in multiple categories.
In addition to his law practice, Simon is involved in community and local bar organizations. Among these activities, he serves as Special Counsel to the Character and Fitness Committee of the Mississippi Bar and on the Board of Directors for the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit.
Prior to joining Bradley, Simon clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for the Honorable Judge E. Grady Jolly.
Listed in Chambers USA, Litigation: General Commercial, 2024-2025 Listed in Best Lawyers in America® Commercial Litigation, 2021-2026 Product Liability Litigation – Defendants, 2022-2026 Listed in Mid-South Super Lawyers Class Action, 2023-2025 "Rising Stars," 2016-2022 Jackson Young Lawyers Association Pro Bono Award, 2014-2015 Cameron J. Miller Award for Excellence & Community Service, 2016 National Institute for Trial Advocacy Building Trial Skills Program Graduate Listed in Mississippi Business Journal, "Top 50 Under 40," 2021 Listed in Portico Jackson magazine, "Portico 15," 2019 Great W. Cas. Co. v. Deepwell Energy Servs., LLC, 766 F. Supp. 3d 686 (W.D. Tex. 2025) Jury trial victory for commercial policyholder in high stakes coverage litigation involving a policy’s “hydrofracking exclusion.” The court entered judgment in the face of post-trial briefing challenging the jury’s verdict. McInnis Elec. Co. v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC, 384 So. 3d 485 (Miss. 2023) Successfully defended an order granting arbitration in a significant construction dispute between a general contractor and an electrical subcontractor. Bolton v. John Lee, P.A., 405 So. 3d 1 (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) Successfully defended an order dismissing various claims against a bank, claims that arose out of a depositor’s criminal misconduct. Significantly, the court held that federal regulations regarding Suspicious Activity Reports do not create a private right of action. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mississippi Transportation Comm'n, 317 So. 3d 937 (Miss. 2021) Obtained reversal on interlocutory appeal of an important trial court order concerning a fuel reimbursement formula for a highway construction project. State ex rel. Fitch v. Yazaki North America, Inc., 294 So. 3d 1178 (Miss. 2020) Successfully represented American Furukawa, an auto parts manufacturer, against claims based on the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that the state did not establish its right to an injunction, the gateway to other relief under the act. The state’s claims under the Mississippi Antitrust Act also failed because the state failed to establish intrastate commerce governed by state antitrust law. Lefoldt v. Horne, L.L.P., 938 F.3d 549 (5th Cir. 2019) Summary judgment in favor of an accounting firm based on application of the “minutes rule” and the nature of a professional engagement. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the absence of an engagement spread on the minutes of a hospital’s governing board eliminated any basis for a suit against the hospital’s accountants. Express Oil Change, LLC v. Mississippi Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Surveyors, 916 F.3d 483 (5th Cir 2019) Successfully represented Express Oil Change in an appeal over the use of the “Tire Engineers” service mark. The Fifth Circuit rendered judgment for Express Oil Change, holding that the State of Mississippi infringed its First Amendment right in banning the use of the service mark. TNHYIF REIV Golf LLC v. Forrest County, 275 So. 3d 92(Miss. Ct. App. 2018) Obtained judgment for taxpayer in valuation dispute over multi-family property. In a case of first impression over proper tax valuation of an off campus student-housing complex, successfully reversed a trial court decision that had allowed local taxing authorities to roughly double the owner’s tax liability using a hypothetical valuation model. The Court of Appeals adopted Bradley’s argument that the income-producing property must be taxed based on its actual performance and rendered a judgment for the taxpayer. Edwards Family Partnership, LP v. BancorpSouth Bank, 236 F. Supp. 3d 964 (S.D. Miss. 2017), aff’d 2017 WL 4641274 Summary judgment in dispute over the obligations created by a deposit account control agreement, following extensive discovery that demonstrated the plaintiff’s abandonment of the agreement’s terms. American Optical Corporation v. Estate of Robert Lee Rankin Sr., 227 So. 3d 1062 (Miss. 2017) Helped successfully represent American Optical Corporation (AO) in an appeal of a $14 million jury verdict. A former construction worker filed a complaint in Jefferson County Circuit Court alleging an injury of “lung disease and silica related conditions caused by exposure to respirable crystalline silica” while using respirators that AO manufactured. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the $14 million jury verdict, vacated the judgment and rendered final judgment as a matter of law in favor of AO. Riddell v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 3:14CV705-DPJ-FKB, 2016 WL 6393447 (S.D. Miss. 2016) Dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiff’s complaint alleging defects in a hip prostheses, despite the plaintiff’s efforts to obtain a dismissal without prejudice. Westford Asset Management, LLC v. Batson & Brown, Inc., 183 So. 3d 894 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) Reversal of adverse judgment of the trial court based on Mississippi’s lien priority and foreclosure laws that applied to a dispute over a golf course and condominium development. Bryant v. 3M Co., 78 F. Supp. 3d 626 (S.D. Miss. 2015) Order striking the plaintiff’s design expert based on deficiencies in the witness’ qualifications and methodology. Direct Digital, LLC v. Mullins, 15-549 (U.S. Supreme Court 2015) Amicus brief on behalf of DRI in support of a strong ascertainability requirement for class certification. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun, 14-1123 & 14-1124 (U.S. Supreme Court 2015) Amicus brief on behalf of DRI explaining due process implications of class-wide proof in cases where facts vary within the putative class. Sai v. United States Postal Service, 14-646 (U.S. Supreme Court 2014) Amicus brief on behalf of legal aid associations urging Supreme Court to clarify and protect the privacy rights of individuals proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court. Gholar v. AO Safety, 39 F. Supp. 3d 856 (S.D. Miss. 2014) Order striking the plaintiff’s sole liability expert in a case in which the plaintiff alleged that a design defect caused his safety goggles to fail. Gillis v. Peoples Bank, No. 2014-0443 (Chancery Ct., Simpson Cnty., Miss.) Summary judgment in a case in which the plaintiffs alleged a wrongful foreclosure based on the manner of notice given by the foreclosing bank. Harris v. Stryker Spine, 39 F. Supp. 3d 846 (S.D Miss. 2014) Summary judgment in a case involving a spinal plate after successfully arguing that the testimony of the plaintiff’s liability expert was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rooster’s Grill, Inc. v. Peoples Bank, 965 F. Supp. 2d 770 (S.D. Miss. 2013) Dismissal with prejudice in a commercial dispute involving a small business administration loan by demonstrating that the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint were not actionable based on the structure and purpose of the controlling federal statute and regulations. Mask and respirator litigation Mask and respirator litigation for 3M Company in products-liability cases brought by plaintiffs alleging injury from exposure to asbestos, silica, or coal dust in connection with their claimed use of 3M respiratory protection products. Mississippi Consumer Protection Act litigation Defended several clients in lawsuits prosecuted by the Attorney General of Mississippi under Section 9 of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.
