N. Reid Neureiter

Attorney in Denver, CO

Reid Neureiter focuses his practice on high-stakes commercial litigation at the trial and appellate level in federal and state courts throughout the county. 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.

Following is a representative sampling of cases Reid has handled:

· Brought lawsuit on behalf of public shareholders of restaurant chain and obtained favorable settlement exceeding $7 million for shareholders squeezed out in corporate merger. Nickerson v. Quizno's Corp., Case No. 04 CV 0455 (District Court for City and County of Denver, 2004)

· Successfully tried to jury breach of contract and fraud case against manufacturer of diesel truck performance parts, resulting in judgment exceeding $1 million. Swails v. Automotive Transmission Specialist Inc., 05 CV 1350 (District Court for Jefferson County, Colo.)

· Represented plaintiffs in multimillion-dollar breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Adelphia Communications Corp., resulting in 2007 settlement of more than $6 million.

· Successfully represented Hispanic tax preparer in civil rights injunction action against county district attorney who had unconstitutionally sought tax records of Hispanic workers in identity theft investigation

· Successfully defended multinational cable television company in intercontinental employment dispute with former executive

· Successfully brought and tried in arbitration a breach of contract claim against parts distributor on behalf of manufacturer of motorcycle engine fuel injection controllers

· Achieved appellate reversal of dismissal order involving application of Colorado's forum non conveniens doctrine to international partnership dispute. UIH-SFCC Holdings L.P. v. Brigato, 51 P.2d 1076 (Colo.App., 2002)

· Represented national tabloid in a case concerning defamation and invasion of privacy of Hollywood actress. Gilbert v. National Enquirer, 43 Cal. App. 4th 1135 (1996)

· Represented national tabloid in a case regarding invasion of privacy claim. Solomon v. National Enquirer, 24 Media L. Rep. 2269 (D.Md., 1996)

· Court-appointed co-counsel for Terry Lynn Nichols in Oklahoma City bombing trial. Presented witnesses, drafted pleadings, wrote appellate briefs and argued points of law. Tried to verdict. United States of America v. McVeigh & Nichols (D.Colo.)

Legal Memberships, Activities, and Honors

Best Lawyers
Business Litigation, 2005
Commercial Litigation, 2006-2014

Colorado Super Lawyers
Business Litigation, 2006-2014

Faculty of Federal Advocates
Board of Directors, 2004-2009
President, 2009

The William E. Doyle American Inn of Court

American Bar Association

Colorado Lawyers Committee
Board of Directors, 2004-2009
Hate Violence Task Force

United States District Court for District of Colorado
Committee on Conduct, 2012-present

Colorado Bar Association

Teaching Positions

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


Bristol Bay v. Lampack et al., No. 12SC139 (Colo. Oct. 21, 2013) - 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.

Represented BP in a class action alleging underpaid royalties. Plaintiffs awarded only a fraction of the original demand.

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


Areas of Law

  • Commercial


    Overall Client Rating

    in Debtor and Creditor and Social Security
    5.0 out of 5.0

    Communication Ability
    Quality of Service
    Value for Money

    • Data based on 1 reviews
    • Recommended by 1 Client
    • Last reviewed on 08/19/12
    Posted by a Consumer on 08/19/12
    5.0 out of 5.0
    He consulted with the ssi lawyer to help with my ssi case and stopped my illegal eviction.
    Report abuse

    Experience & Credentials


    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
    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
    with honors

    University of Texas at Austin
    Class of 1993
    Barbara Jordan Scholar



    Representative Cases

    UIH-SFCC Holdings, L.P. v. Brigato, 51 P.3d 1076 (Colo. App. 2002); Eurpac Service Inc. v. Republic Acceptance Corp., 37 P.3d 447 (Colo. App. 2000); United States v. McVeigh & Nichols (Appeal of Dallas Morning News) 119 F.3d 806 (10th Cir. 1997); Nichols v. Reno, 124 F.3d 1376 (10th Cir. 1997); Solomon v. National Enquirer, 24 Media L.Rep. 2269 (19... More

    Contact Information




    Send email to N. Reid Neureiter

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


    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.


    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.