​Collin Ray is a litigation associate in Gibson Dunn’s Dallas office.  His practice focuses primarily on high-value complex litigation, including multidistrict litigation, class actions, and arbitrations.  He has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America as “One to Watch.”  Mr. Ray is a member of the firm’s Litigation, Labor and Employment, and Energy practice groups.

Mr. Ray has a wide range of litigation and arbitration experience, representing clients and trying cases in many areas of the law, including employment, mass torts, business torts, consumer fraud, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, personal jurisdiction, piercing the corporate veil, and claims under federal securities laws, the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act, the False Claims Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, federal and state employment laws, and various consumer protection statutes.

Mr. Ray has represented clients across a number of industries, including telecommunications companies, social media companies, software companies, electric utilities, energy companies (upstream, midstream, and downstream), insurance companies, nationwide retail companies, real estate investment companies, construction and engineering companies, and law firms.   He practices before state and federal courts, at both the trial and appellate levels, and is regularly involved in high-stakes domestic and international arbitrations.

Mr. Ray graduated with honors from the University of Michigan Law School in 2014, and received his Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Political Science from Auburn University in 2011, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.  Prior to joining Gibson Dunn, Mr. Ray served as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert L. Pitman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Representative Experience

• Trial counsel for a global media company in Fair Labor Standards Act litigation.  Mr. Ray served as part of the core trial team in one of the first in-person federal jury trials in the country during the COVID pandemic.  At the conclusion of the five-day trial, the jury returned a complete verdict for Gibson Dunn’s client in a matter of minutes.
• Represented engineering, procurement, and construction firms in engineering and construction disputes in the energy industry, including successfully defending two firms in a $7 billion fraud and fiduciary duty arbitration relating to the construction of a $10 billion refinery.
• Represented a global telecommunications company in multiple lawsuits alleging False Claims Act violations in connection with the Universal Service Program for Schools and Libraries (“E-Rate”), securing complete summary judgment victories for Gibson Dunn’s client.
• Represented global social media and virtual reality companies as appellate counsel at trial and in post-trial proceedings after a $500 million adverse jury verdict; persuaded the district court to set aside $250 million of the verdict.
• Represented large retail electric provider in multiple billing disputes with large commercial and industrial customers, including in an arbitration where Gibson Dunn successfully defeated claims brought against its client through dispositive motion practice.
• Represented domestic and international buyers and sellers in litigation and arbitrations involving disputes surrounding energy-industry acquisitions, including cases involving claims for breach of representations and warranties and claims for fraud.
• Represented a global telecommunications company in litigation involving claims of fraudulent overbilling.  Gibson Dunn successfully persuaded the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss its claims, with prejudice and without payment from Gibson Dunn’s client.
• Represented a software companies and social media companies in federal courts and a Texas multidistrict litigation in multiple cases involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
• Represented global telecommunications company in a wage and hour collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standard Act, securing decertification of the collective after developing record that collective members were not similarly situated.