• vcard
303.583.8242
  • Education
    • J.D., University of Colorado Law School, 2007, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy, Managing Editor
    • B.A., University of Colorado-Boulder, 2004, Political Science, Philosophy, and Minor in Business Administration; Student Body President
  • Court Admissions
    • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2008
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2008
    • Supreme Court of Colorado, 2007
Richard Murray is a firm believer that the best outcome for Polsinelli’s clients begins with an understanding of their business objectives and how disputes or potential litigation affects those objectives. As an associate in the firm’s litigation practice, his practice focuses on commercial and business disputes and health care litigation.  Richard also assists with cases involving  real estate and construction litigation issues. He has substantial experience in complex litigation and has successfully defended against multi-million dollar claims at both the trial court and appellate court levels. He has been awarded a peer review rating of AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbell®.

Before joining Polsinelli, Richard represented physicians, dentists, registered nurses, and health care facilities in professional liability and licensure board matters. Prior to private practice, he served as a judicial law clerk for Justice Nathan B. Coats on the Colorado Supreme Court. Richard’s experience also includes internships with Justice Allison Eid on the Colorado Supreme Court and Judge David Furman on the Colorado Court of Appeals, as well as with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, the Colorado House of Representatives, and the Denver City Attorney’s Office.

Richard has been honored as one of the Top 25 Most Influential Young Professionals in Colorado by ColoradoBiz magazine, as a five-time "Rising Star" in Colorado Super Lawyers, and as a "Compleat Lawyer" by Law Week Colorado. Richard is also active in the Colorado legal community. He recently completed a term as the First Vice President of the Denver Bar Association, and serves on the Board of Governors for the Colorado Bar Association, on the University of Colorado Law School’s Law Alumni Board, and on the Board of Directors for CLE in Colorado, Inc. In 2015, the President of the Colorado Senate appointed Richard to serve on the statewide Colorado Access to Justice Commission.
  • Authored the amicus curiae brief in the Colorado Court of Appeals published case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc. The amicus curiae brief—“friend of the court” brief—was filed on behalf of a coalition of developers, chambers of commerce, trade organizations, and business organizations, and presented arguments that declarations requiring declarant consent prior to the removal of an arbitration provision are valid and enforceable under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). In the Court of Appeals opinion, the CCIOA issues echoed the arguments presented in the amicus brief. This published appellate decision addressed a major issue in construction defect law that Senate Bill 177, a 2015 legislative effort that failed to pass, was designed to accomplish—if a declaration contains a provision requiring the declarant’s consent to remove an arbitration clause, that requirement is enforceable.  
  • First-chaired and prevailed at trial in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado against a company executive on Section 523 claims, including fraud and embezzlement. The court entered judgment in favor of the client in the amount of $2,544,000, plus interest and costs.
  • First-chaired a trial representing two hospitals in an administrative case against the State of Colorado relating to alleged overpayments for Medicaid services and prevailed on all claims.
  • Successfully defended case arising from intellectual property and contract dispute over a technology license agreement in which over $31,000,000 was claimed as damages against the client.
  • Represented law firm and attorneys in a case involving claims of abuse of process and malicious prosecution and prevailed on motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice.
  • Successfully obtained summary judgment against $3.7 million of alleged debt which was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. 
  • Successfully obtained judgment against former CEO as a sanction for violation of discovery rules and successfully defended against motion to set aside the judgment.
  • Represented company executives and employees and prevailed on motions to dismiss all claims with prejudice.
  • Successfully obtained judgments against two companies for more than $1.6 million in damages.
  • Represented physician in end-of-employment dispute over compensation with medical center.
  • Obtained dismissal of complaint and investigation against physician by the Colorado Medical Board.
  • Successfully moved to quash subpoena served on a hospital for patient medical records.
  • Prevailed on motion for summary judgment on behalf of two hospitals against the State of Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing on 22 claims of alleged overpayments for Medicaid services.  The issue in the case related to a reimbursement dispute about the Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) payment methodology for laparoscopic (sleeve) gastrectomy surgeries
eAlerts Alerts
July 8, 2016
eAlerts Alerts
June 22, 2016
Publication and Presentations Icon Publications & Presentations
Colorado Real Estate Journal; Multifamily Properties Quarterly
May 2016
eAlerts Alerts
May 8, 2015
Publication and Presentations Icon Publications & Presentations
Practicing with Professionalism
Boulder County Bar Association Bench/Bar Retreat
Presentation given at University of Colorado Law School
April 2010
Case Study Case Studies
Case Study Case Studies
Positive Effects on Colorado Housing and Construction Market
Success Highlights 

Through its amicus brief on behalf of some of the most influential business entities and organizations in the region, Polsinelli successfully presented prevailing arguments in favor of an interpretation of CCIOA that will have profound positive effects on the housing and construction markets in Colorado.

Case Background

Construction defect litigation has severely restricted new condominium development in Colorado.  During the 2015 Colorado legislative session, Senate Bill 177 was introduced to reform Colorado’s construction defect laws.  The bill sought to address a common problem concerning arbitration provisions in community declarations. Developer-declarants - those who build the condo community and establish the HOA - routinely include in the declaration a provision requiring binding arbitration of construction defect disputes. The Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), the statute that governs the formation of condominiums in Colorado, expressly encourages arbitration of such disputes and Colorado law has long favored arbitration as an alternative to civil actions in court. Just as routinely, homeowners, once in control of their HOA, would vote to amend their declarations to remove that arbitration requirement in an effort to bring their case before a jury.  This amendment occurs despite an express provision in many declarations requiring declarant consent before the amendment is made.  That consent is rarely, if ever, sought by the homeowners prior to the amendment.  Following the amendment, the homeowners then proceed to court with their construction defect claims. Senate Bill 177 was meant to address these issues and make the declarant-consent provisions enforceable. However, the bill died in a House committee.

Meanwhile, the case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al. was pending in the Colorado Court of Appeals.  In Vallagio, a condominium homeowners association brought a lawsuit against the developer/declarant alleging construction defects. The declaration included a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. That section stated that its provisions "shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment." After the declarant turned over control of the project to the association, the unit owners voted to amend the declaration to remove the entire mandatory arbitration provision, without ever obtaining the declarant's consent. Soon after the declaration was amended, the association filed a lawsuit in district court. The district court denied the declarant's motion to compel arbitration, ruling the declarant consent requirement violated CCIOA and was void and unenforceable. An appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals reversed on the CCIOA issues. Notably, the appellate court held the declarant's consent was required to amend the arbitration provision under the terms of the original declaration, and the consent requirement was not void and unenforceable under CCIOA. The appellate court further held that requiring declarant consent for amendments does not limit any "power" of a homeowners' association and that CCIOA does not prohibit a declaration from imposing the requirement of declarant consent for amendments. The court concluded: "Because the unit owners did not obtain Metro Inverness' written consent, their attempt to remove the declaration's arbitration provision was ineffective."

The court went on to acknowledge that there may be intended third-party beneficiaries to the arbitration requirement within declarations – i.e., construction and design professionals – so long as they are specifically intended within the declarations.

Polsinelli’s Role 

In the case of Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., Polsinelli drafted and filed an amicus curiae brief, a "friend of the court" brief, on behalf of a coalition of developers, chambers of commerce, trade organizations, and business organizations, presenting arguments that declarations requiring declarant consent prior to the removal of an arbitration provision by homeowners are valid and enforceable under CCIOA. The published appellate decision addressed a major problem in Colorado's construction defect laws that Senate Bill 177 was designed to correct – if the declaration includes a requirement that an arbitration clause cannot be removed without the declarant's consent, that declaration means what it says, and that requirement is enforceable.  In its published decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals’ opinion echoed the arguments presented in Polsinelli's amicus brief with respect to each of the CCIOA issues.


Polsinelli is proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Polsinelli PC. Polsinelli LLP in California
Related News