Free Consultation: (301) 424-8081Tap to Call This Lawyer
Mark Oakley

Mark Oakley

  • Criminal Law, DUI & DWI, Family Law ...
  • District of Columbia, Maryland
Review This Lawyer
Claimed Lawyer ProfileQ&A
Biography

Mark W. Oakley is an established litigation attorney concentrating on civil litigation, personal injury, construction law, and criminal and traffic defense. He also advises business clients, negotiates and drafts contracts, and handles a variety of litigation matters at all levels of the state and federal court systems. Mr. Oakley is trained and certified in the collaborative practice of law. Mr. Oakley is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law (J.D. 1987), and the University of Maryland, College Park (B.A. 1984). He is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association, the District of Columbia Bar, and the Bar Association of Montgomery County. He is admitted to practice before the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Authored the winning brief in the case of 1986 Mercedes v. State of Maryland, a precedent-setting decision limiting the State’s power to forfeit private property.

Practice Areas
    Criminal Law
    Criminal Appeals, Drug Crimes, Expungement, Fraud, Gun Crimes, Internet Crimes, Sex Crimes, Theft, Violent Crimes
    DUI & DWI
    Family Law
    Adoption, Child Custody, Child Support, Father's Rights, Guardianship & Conservatorship, Paternity, Prenups & Marital Agreements, Restraining Orders, Same Sex Family Law
    Personal Injury
    Animal & Dog Bites, Brain Injury, Car Accidents, Construction Accidents, Motorcycle Accidents, Premises Liability, Truck Accidents, Wrongful Death
    Construction Law
    Construction Contracts, Construction Defects, Construction Liens, Construction Litigation
    Estate Planning
    Guardianship & Conservatorship Estate Administration, Health Care Directives, Trusts, Wills
    Business Law
    Business Contracts, Business Dissolution, Business Finance, Business Formation, Business Litigation, Franchising, Mergers & Acquisitions, Partnership & Shareholder Disputes
Fees
  • Free Consultation
  • Credit Cards Accepted
    Visa, MasterCard, Discover
  • Contingent Fees
    I handle personal injury claims on a contingent fee basis, meaning if there is no recovery, you do not owe me a legal fee.
Jurisdictions Admitted to Practice
District of Columbia
District of Columbia Bar
Placeholder image for jurisdictions.
Maryland
Placeholder image for jurisdictions.
Education
University of Maryland - Baltimore
J.D. (1987) | Law
-
Placeholder image for education.
University of Maryland - College Park
B.A. (1984) | English
-
University of Maryland - College Park Logo
Professional Associations
District of Columbia Bar
Member
- Current
Placeholder image for professional associations.
Maryland State Bar Association
Member
- Current
Placeholder image for professional associations.
Bar Association of Montgomery County
Member
- Current
Placeholder image for professional associations.
Websites & Blogs
Website
Legal Answers
1402 Questions Answered
Q. Can you get in trouble for being with one another
A: Yes, he is violating a condition of his release on bond by having contact wth you. It does not matter that you are the one who initiated the contact. Of course, the police likely have no way to know about any contact, until the two of you get into another fight and police are called again, and then they will see he is under a no contact condition which will result in a no-bond determination upon that arrest and a likely revocation of bond on the prior arrest. This happens all the time in abusive relationships. When I am representing a defendant on a domestic assault charge with a no contact condition on their bond, I instruct them to not respond to texts, emails, calls or to open the door to the person they are to have no contact with, as that person called the police once, they will call again, because the two of them cannot interact without an assault or argument ensuing, and it's going to happen again as sure as the sun rises and sets, and then they will be in jail waiting for trial instead of free on bond. But, maybe the two of you are the exception. I would not bet money on it. If you really care for him, you would stop jeopardizing him by causing him to be in violation of the no-contact condition. You should also be reevaluating you relationship with someone who resorts to physical violence to the point you (or someone else) feel that calling the police is necessary to protect you from harm. That is NOT a healthy relationship.
Q. Do i have to respond to a discovery request while im in the middle of switching lawyers
A: The procedural rules do not have an exception in their time deadlines for switching lawyers. Written discovery responses are due 30 days after service of them upon you. That said, the discovery deadlines in most cases in circuit court can encompass a 4-6 month range, and it is common for parties to not respond within the strict time contraints of the rule. Simply notify the opposing counsel or party that you are changing lawyers and your new counsel will be helping you prepare your discovery responses within 30 days. Typically, a party late in their responses will receive at least one letter from opposing counsel after the response is due asking for when they can expect to receive them. The letter may threaten a motion to compel. Even if a motion is filed, so long as you get your answers and responses to document requests delivered to your opponent, the court is unlikely to impose any meaningful sanction since the motion is moot. Judges do not like discovery disputes, but so long as you are making a sincere effort to respond and are not simply being evasive or obstructionist in your actions, you should be fine. Don't take too long to get new counsel. A case already in litigation with deadlines passed or imminent is a recipe for most lawyers to decline taking your case. Nobody wants to be responsible for the finished cake when somebody else already mixed and botched all the ingredients.
Q. Outstanding dental balance question.
A: It will depend on whether each of the dental procedures were either (1) part of a single overall plan for one total price that took multiple procedures to complete, or (2) whether each procedure was a separate unrelated dental procedure with a price charged for each. In the former situation, the argument would be that the SOL does not begin to run until the last payment was due on the last procedure. In the latter situation, the SOL begins to run from the date that each individually charged procedure was completed and the money became due and payable. That would mean, for your situation, that any money owed for procedures that occurred further back than the applicable statute of limitations would be barred. Normally that would be 3 years. But, due to Covid, you need to add 126 days to the 3 year SOL because the SOL clock stopped running between March 15, 2020 and July 20, 2020 when the Court of Appeals shut the courts down. So, any procedures for which money remains owing that were performed within 3 years and 126 days would still be valid; any older than that date would be barred.
View More Answers
Contact & Map
1803 Research Blvd., Suite 401
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (301) 424-8081
Toggle tool

There are no recently viewed profiles.

There are no saved profiles.

There are no profiles to compare.