Jean Lewis Jean Lewis

Jean E. Lewis



Jean Lewis has more than 25 years of experience in trying and litigating complex civil cases for both plaintiffs and defendants. As a leader of the firm's commercial litigation group, she has significant experience representing clients in professional liability claims, bankruptcy-related litigation, class actions, business disputes, and other commercial litigation.

Her representations include multinational law firms, one of the world's largest hotel companies, bankruptcy trustees, corporate directors and officers, businesses, and local governments. In addition to jury trials in courts around the country, Jean represents clients in bankruptcy adversary proceedings, commercial arbitration and internal investigations. She has published several papers on arbitration in Maryland.

Before entering private practice, Jean served as the Deputy Director of the Mayor of Baltimore City's Office on Criminal Justice. She also tried cases as a public defender in Alameda County, California, and worked as an advocate for children at Legal Services for Children, Inc., in San Francisco.


Recognized in Benchmark Litigation, Local Litigation Star, General Commercial, Bankruptcy, 2020

Listed in The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation, since 2019

Selected for inclusion in Maryland Super Lawyers, since 2017


Job Opportunities Task Force, Board Chair 2013 - 2017; Executive Committee 2017 - present

Fund for Educational Excellence, Rose Street Community Center, Board of Directors 

Federal Bar Association, Professional Ethics Committee, Former Member

Serjeant's Inn, Member

Maryland Volunteer Legal Services Corporation, Former Board Member

KIPP Baltimore, Former Board Member

Baltimore Economic Recovery Team, Former Co-Chair


American Bar Association

Federal Bar Association

International Women's Insolvency & Restructuring Confederation

Maryland State Bar Association

National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees


Co-presenter, "Litigating Bankruptcy Cases," Maryland Bankruptcy Bar Association Spring Break Weekend, 2019

Presenter, "Cost-Effective, Cloud-Based Data Collection," RICOH Webinar, 2018

Co-presenter, "Preventing, Spotting and Addressing ESI Destruction," Maryland State Bar Association Annual Meeting, MSBA, 2017

Co-presenter, "Introduction to Federal Practice," Federal Bar Association - Maryland Chapter, 2014, 2015


Co-author, "Litigating Against Bad Debtors: Protecting Against the Spoliation of ESI," American Bankruptcy Trustee Journal, 2017

Co-author, "Compelling and Staying Arbitration in Maryland," Thomson Reuters Practical Law, 2017

Co-author, "Enforcing Arbitration Awards in Maryland," Thomson Reuters Practical Law, 2016

Representative Matters

Served as defense counsel in a bilateral class action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County involving violations of the Maryland Towing Act and related claims. After a successful mediation in 2017, a settlement resolving a substantial number of the claims at issue was approved by the Court. In 2018 and 2019, motions for summary judgment were briefed and the parties engaged in a second mediation. Ultimately the class requested, and the court approved, a significantly reduced settlement demand to individual class members.

Represented  shareholders of a now-defunct medical software company against certain directors and officers to recoup the shareholders’ significant investments. In addition to the complaint filed on behalf of the investor group, Kramon & Graham also represented the bankruptcy trustee of the company as the plaintiff in a related case. In the parallel lawsuits in D.C. Superior Court, the Kramon & Graham team withstood a personal jurisdiction challenge and conducted national discovery, and obtained a settlement that was ultimately approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

Arguing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, served as local counsel and presented the damages case in Paice LLC v Hyundai Motor Co. Working with patent specialists Fish & Richardson, Kramon & Graham presented a compelling claim that Defendants Hyundai and Kia should pay between $200 and $250 per car for their infringement of the Plaintiffs’ patents. After a full day of deliberations, the jury returned a $28.9 million verdict against the automakers, which equated to $200 per car.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment obtained by Jim Ulwick and Jean Lewis on behalf of a law firm sued for legal malpractice. The plaintiff alleged 13 separate acts of malpractice and sought $17 million in damages. Jim and Jean successfully moved to have the case withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and obtained summary judgment on all counts in the district court.

In a major victory for Kramon & Graham client, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of changes made to the public safety unions' pension plan in 2010. According to the federal appeals court, the changes did not constitute impairments within the meaning of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision in favor of the City that changes to active employees' pensions did not constitute a federal impairment and reversed the district court's determination that the changes made to retirees' plans did [opinion]. Represented the City at trial, on appeal, and before the City Council in 2010 as the legislation at issue was enacted.

Successfully defended a law firm and its management against claims by a former partner of fraud and breach of contract. The arbitrator found no fraud and awarded the claimant less than 10% of his claimed contractual damages.

As special litigation counsel to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Trustee, successfully argued before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland in Schlossberg, Chapter 11 Trustee v. Vincent Abell et al., Adversary Proceeding No.: 14-00417-TJC, that spoliation by the defendants was so egregious that terminating sanctions were justified. The Court entered a judgment that effectively required the turnover of scores of properties and bank accounts to the firm’s client. The case is significant both for its use of the continuing concealment doctrine in the recovery of assets and for the Court’s opinion on spoliation, which provides the latest, most comprehensive judicial discussion of sanctions for the destruction of ESI.