N. Reid Neureiter

Attorney in Denver, CO
Reid Neureiter focuses his practice on high-stakes commercial litigation at the trial and appellate levels in federal and state courts throughout the country. Prior to joining WTO in 2013, Reid served as senior counsel at another Denver law firm where he focused his practice on business, education, and product liability litigation.

In 1996, Reid moved to Denver to work as court-appointed defense counsel in the trial of Terry Lynn Nichols, defendant in the Oklahoma City bombing case.

He began his legal career working as an associate for a law firm in Washington, D.C., where he handled complex litigation and libel defense. Before law school, he worked for two years as junior economist for the majority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee.

Teaching Positions
Faculty of Federal Advocates
Federal Court Mock Trial Program, 2011-2012

Articles/Presentations

The Prosecution and Defense of the Oklahoma City Bombing Case presented at DU Sturm College of Law to the DU Law School Mentor/Mentee program (October 3, 2013)

Colorado's Current Formulation of the Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims for Post-Contractual Fraud, The Colorado Lawyer, December 2012.

Lance Armstrong's Legal War, Law Week Colorado, October 22, 2012.

Lessons for Lawyers: The First Presidential Debate, Law Week Colorado, October 9, 2012.

Trial Diaries Part Two of a Two-Part Story: Representing Terry Nichols: The Story of One Lawyer's First Jury Trial, The Docket, June 2012.

Trial Diaries Part One of a Two-Part Story. Representing Terry Nichols: The Story of One Lawyer's First Jury Trial, The Docket, May 2012.

New Role for Federal Magistrates in Colorado, Law Week Colorado, February 27, 2012.

M&A Litigation: Tips from the Trenches: Post Closing Litigation in M&A Transactions; panelist, presented at The Colorado Bar Association, Denver Colorado (October 4, 2011)

Legal Developments Surrounding the Democratic National Convention; panel moderator, presented at to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (December 2009)

Effective Use of Courtroom Technology; presented with U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (July 2008)

Deposition Conduct:What is Permitted and What is Not.; organized and moderated panel with U.S. Magistrate Judges Boyd Boland and Michael Hegarty to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (September 2007)

The U.S. Attorneys Office and Litigating with the Government; moderated panel including U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hegarty, U.S. Attorney Troy Eid and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Christian to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (Aug. 2007)

Rule 65 - Practice and Procedure: Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary Injunctions in Federal Court; moderated panel including Federal District Judges Wiley Daniel and Philip Figa to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (Sept. 2006)

Everything You Need to Know about Settlement Conferences; moderated seminar involving Federal Magistrate Judges and private arbitrators to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (June, 2006)

How to Get Your Expert's Opinion into Evidence; moderated seminar involving Federal District Judges Marcia Krieger and Robert Blackburn to the Faculty of Federal Advocates (May, 2006)

The Limited Availability of the Forum Non Conveniens Defense in Colorado State Courts, The Colorado Lawyer, November 2004 (co-written with James Eklund)

Government Service
Law Clerk to The Honorable Stanley Sporkin, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Junior Economist, Majority Staff of Budget Committee, United States House of Representatives, 1987 - 1989

303.244.1993

Areas of Law

  • Commercial

     

    Overall Client Rating

    in Debtor and Creditor and Social Security
    5.0 out of 5.0

    Communication Ability
    5.0
    Responsiveness
    5.0
    Quality of Service
    5.0
    Value for Money
    5.0

    • Data based on 1 reviews
    • Recommended by 1 Client
    • Last reviewed on 08/19/12
    No feedback is available.
    The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.
    Are you a former client?  Submit a review

    Experience & Credentials

    Position

    Of Counsel

    Admission Details

    Admitted in 1994, Pennsylvania
    1197, District of Columbia
    1998, Colorado
    U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
    U.S. Supreme Court

    Law School Attended

    University of Texas School of Law
    Class of 1993
    J.D.
    Order of the Coif, Texas Law Review, Associate Editor, Chancellor at Large, Gibbs & Ratliff Moot Court Champion, Thad T. Hutcheson Moot Court Champion and Best Brief

    University Attended

    Swarthmore College
    Class of 1987
    B.A.
    with honors

    University of Texas at Austin
    Class of 1993
    M.P.Aff.
    Barbara Jordan Scholar

    Languages

    French

    Associations & Memberships

    Legal Memberships, Activities, and Honors
    Best Lawyers
    Business Litigation, 2005
    Commercial Litigation, 2006-2015
    Colorado Super Lawyers... More

    Representative Cases

    Cases; Secured dismissal from Colorado Supreme Court for WTO client Simon & Schuster in case involving movie studio's $50 million damages claim based on alleged false representation of Clive Cussler readership figures. Bristol Bay v. Lampack et al. , No. 12SC139 (Colo. Oct. 21, 2013). Represented BP in a class action alleging underpaid royalties. P... More

    Contact Information

    Phone

    303.244.1993

    Fax

    303.244.1879

    Email

    Send email to N. Reid Neureiter


    Office Information
    N. Reid Neureiter
    Of Counsel
     370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500,
    Denver, CO 80202-5647

    Loading...

    Logo
    Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP (Denver, Colorado)

    About Client Rating
    About Peer Rating

    Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

    Determining a Rating

    The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

    • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
    • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
    • 1-2.9 Rated

    Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

    The Reviewers

    Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.

    Anonymity

    Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

    Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

    Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

    Martindale-Hubbell's role

    Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

    It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.