• Lawyers
  • Practices
  • COVID-19 Resources
  • Insights
    • Firm News
    • Press Releases
    • Publications
    • Webcasts
    • Podcasts
    • Subscribe
    • Media Contacts
  • Careers
    • Career Opportunities
    • Attorney Development
    • Contact Us
  • About
    • Our Story
    • Awards & Accolades
    • Offices
    • Diversity
    • Pro Bono
    • Alumni
    • Contact Us
  • Biography
  • Education
  • Recent Publications
Profile Picture

Michael K. Murphy

Michael
Murphy

Partner

CONTACT INFO

mmurphy@gibsondunn.com

TEL:+1 202.955.8238

FAX:+1 202.530.9657

Washington, D.C.

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306 USA

  • Print
  • |
  • Share
  • |
  • vCard

PRACTICE

Environmental Litigation and Mass Tort Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Government Contracts Litigation

BIOGRAPHY

Michael Murphy is a partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Washington, D.C. office.  He is a leader of the firm’s Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practice area, and is a member of the firm’s Environmental Litigation and Mass Tort and Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice Groups.  Mr. Murphy counsels clients on environmental and ESG issues related to corporate transactions and compliance.  He also represents clients in a wide variety of investigation and litigation matters.  Mr. Murphy was previously recognized by Law360 as one of its ‘Rising Star’ environmental attorneys under 40 to watch.  Law360 named Gibson Dunn one of its five Environmental Groups of the Year for its high-profile victories in 2018.

Mr. Murphy advises clients in a variety of corporate, private equity, finance and real estate transactions. He is experienced in identifying environmental risks and negotiating transactional documents for buyers, sellers and investors of manufacturing, service, technology, aerospace, petroleum, energy, and financial industry clients.  His litigation experience enables him to approach each environmental transactional issue with a broad perspective that takes into account all of his clients’ concerns. He advises clients on ESG and sustainability matters, including corporate disclosures, policies, reporting and integration issues.  He also helps clients manage large remediation projects, including negotiating final remedies with state and federal regulators.

Mr. Murphy has handled a wide variety of litigation matters in both federal and state courts.  He has served as first chair trial counsel and has argued before three federal appellate courts.  As lead trial counsel, he obtained a significant CERCLA recovery for Lockheed Martin from the United States based on the government’s involvement at a Cold War-era rocket manufacturing facility in Southern California. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. United States (D.D.C).  He has assisted other leading government contractors in obtaining contribution from the federal government at military production facilities across the country.  He presented arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to further define the relationship between CERCLA’s cost recovery and contribution causes of action, and the court ultimately adopted the position urged by Mr. Murphy during oral argument.

Mr. Murphy defends clients in state and federal environmental enforcement and civil actions involving air, water and waste allegations.  He also represents clients in toxic tort mass and class actions, and has experience working with a variety of leading environmental consultants and experts on technical issues regarding groundwater, sediment transport, and air dispersion modeling.

In addition, Mr. Murphy represents clients in administrative litigation, rulemaking proceedings, and permit actions to obtain government approval for infrastructure projects, including airport, highway, and railroad projects, and other regulated actions.  These representations involve a number of state and federal environmental statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as state counterparts such as CEQA and NY SEQR, the Endangered Species Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Toxic Substances and Control Act, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act.  He also has experience in a variety of government contract matters.

Mr. Murphy received his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1999, where he was a member of the Virginia Journal of International Law. He received his Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University in 1993.  He attended the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, receiving a M.Sc. in International Law.  Mr. Murphy is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Selected representations include:

  • Representing Chevron in climate change litigation in multiple state and federal jurisdictions across the United States
  • Obtaining a favorable settlement for a Department of Energy contractor against a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforcement action and related False Claims Act allegations brought by the United States at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky
  • Defending a paper company against a state statutory penalty action brought by Harris County, TX, seeking billions of dollars for past waste disposal practices, and assisting in obtaining a jury verdict clearing the company of any liability
  • Defending an Environmental Impact Statement issued by the Federal Highway Administration against attack by local residents who sought to halt CSX’s reconstruction of the Virginia Avenue Tunnel in Washington, DC.
  • Representing CSX before the Surface Transportation Board in matters related to passenger rail regulation

EDUCATION

University of Virginia - 1999 Juris Doctor

University of Edinburgh - 1994 M.S. International Law

Georgetown University - 1993 Bachelor of Science

ADMISSIONS

District of Columbia Bar

Virginia Bar

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Client Alert - March 11, 2021 | Part Two – Mandatory Corporate Human Rights Due Diligence: What Now and What Next? An International Perspective
Press Releases - February 4, 2021 | Gibson Dunn Launches Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Practice
Client Alert - January 13, 2021 | Department of the Interior’s New Migratory Bird Treaty Act Interpretive Rule in the Crosshairs
Client Alert - August 3, 2020 | NEPA Review Revamp: What Developers Should Expect from the CEQ’s New Rule and the Incoming Litigation Storm-Front
Client Alert - May 27, 2020 | Gaps in the EPA’s COVID-19 Temporary Enforcement Policy: What Regulated Entities Should Consider as Compliance Issues Arise Due to the Pandemic
Client Alert - April 3, 2019 | U.S. EPA Finalizes New Owner Clean Air Act Audit Program Tailored for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Article - November 14, 2018 | Assessing Atomic Energy Act’s Reach At High Court
Client Alert - January 22, 2018 | 2017 Year-End Environmental Update for the Oil & Gas Industry
Article - March 8, 2017 | Fourth Circuit Uranium Mining Ruling Narrows Federal Preemption
Article - August 7, 2015 | Do CERCLA Cost Recovery And Contribution Rights Overlap?
Article - November 10, 2014 | 11th Circ. Message: Be Careful With Lone Pine Orders
Client Alert - April 7, 2014 | Pressure Mounts to Disclose Fracking Chemicals
Client Alert - August 7, 2013 | Lone Pine Orders Are Still Useful In Fracking Litigation
Client Alert - August 6, 2012 | Emerging State Fracking Regulations
Client Alert - April 12, 2012 | More CERCLA Recovery Hurdles For ‘Compelled’ Costs
Client Alert - December 5, 2011 | A New Way Of Looking At Solid Waste
Client Alert - February 9, 2011 | Thinking Strategically About Petroleum Contamination
Client Alert - May 7, 2009 | Environmental Compliance Review Required for Projects Funded Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Client Alert - April 30, 2009 | CERCLA in the Post-Atlantic Research World: Some Emerging Questions
Client Alert - February 2, 2009 | Western District of Washington Limits Access To Section 113(f)(1) of CERCLA
Client Alert - April 21, 2008 | The Ninth Circuit Holds That Potentially Responsible Parties May Seek Cost Recovery Under Section 107(a) of CERCLA (Kotrous v. Bayer CropScience, Inc., et al.)
Client Alert - June 11, 2007 | Supreme Court Holds in United States v. Atlantic Research That Potentially Responsible Parties Have a Cost Recovery Cause of Action Under Section 107(a)(4)(B) of CERCLA
  • Sitemap
  • Client Extranet
  • Legal Notices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Notice
  • Contact Us
©Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 2021. All rights reserved.
Top
This website uses cookies to provide analytics on user traffic. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as set forth in our Cookie Policy. However you may visit Cookie Settings to customize your consent.
Cookie SettingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Analytics

Cookies that tie into analytics systems, such as Google Analytics, YouTube and Vimeo analytics for embedded video, etc. The following are the cookies installed by the service: _ga, _gid, collect, vuid

Performance

These cookies collect information about how visitors use a website, for instance which pages visitors go to most often, and if they get error messages from web pages. These cookies don’t collect information that identifies a visitor. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. It is only used to improve how a website works. The following cookie is installed by the Google Analytics service: _gat

Save & Accept