Colin’s practice focuses on the defense and trial of construction defect litigation, insurance coverage and litigation, with an emphasis in general liability, cyber security and data protection, products liability and professional liability. Colin’s expertise comes from handling countless matters, cultivating relationships and engaging his community.
Clients appreciate working with Colin because of his emphasis on personal service to his clients and total devotion to client satisfaction. He has worked with both domestic and internationally-based insurance companies and clients. He has also represented some of the world’s leading heavy machine manufacturers and related mechanical and engineering systems. Over the years, Colin has also represented sports, leisure and entertainment clients including theme parks, casinos, night clubs, restaurants and retail stores in matters involving traumatic brain injuries with associated memory loss, orthopedic and soft tissue injuries, loss of consortium claims, emotional injuries, wrongful death and subrogation matters. He has also represented design professionals, accountants, attorneys, brokers, and directors and officers in professional liability disputes.
Over the years, Colin has helped clients with matters involving residential and commercial projects. He has defended engineers and contractors in straightforward and complex litigation involving the construction of condominiums, apartments, mixed-use developments, medical facilities, and parking structures.
Areas of Practice
- Santa Clara University, J.D., 2013
- University of California Santa Cruz, B.A., History, 2009
- Walser-Jolly, G. and Murphy, C. authored Chapter 10A on the CCPA “Privacy Compliance and Litigation in California”
- Kenney, A. B. & Murphy, C. T. (February 23, 2017). “Different Approaches to CLRA Damages”, The Daily Journal,
- Hyman, S. J. & Murphy, C.T., (February 2017). Monthly Personal Property Finance Newsletter, No. 1, pp. 1-19
Consumer Finance Posts
- Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Failure to Disclose that Part Was Subject to Recall and Was Not Repaired Violated CLRA
- Court of Appeal (Cal.) Says Benson Tender Was in Bad Faith Because it Imposed Unreasonable Conditions on the Consumer; Says As to Holder Who Tendered Back the RISC, “Once a Holder, Always a Holder”
- Benson Update: Another California Court of Appeal Distinguishes the “Benson-tender”; i.e. Courts’ Treatment of a CLRA Defendant’s Response to a Pre-Suit Demand Letter
- Different Approaches To CLRA Damages