Attorneys

Louis Malick Louis Malick

Louis P. Malick

Principal
410-347-7419410-539-1269
lmalick@kg-law.com
Download vCard
Download Bio PDF

Biography

Louis Malick handles a variety of litigation matters, including high stakes commercial litigation, state licensing disputes, pension litigation, estate and trust disputes, real estate disputes, construction defect litigation, class action defense, employment disputes, and defense of attorneys and other professionals facing malpractice claims or grievances. Among other things, Louis has successfully represented judges before the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and the Court of Appeals of Maryland and effectively assisted medical cannabis growers, processors, and dispensaries navigate Maryland's developing regulatory framework for this new industry.

A strong strategic thinker, Louis has important experience in trial, appellate, and administrative settings. He is keenly attuned to client needs, as well as the perceptions and expectations of the decision maker – whether a trial judge, an administrative panel of lay persons, lawyers or judges, or an appellate bench. Clients value his strong advocacy, creative problem solving, and discretion in dealing with highly sensitive matters.

Before joining the firm, Louis clerked for the Honorable Deborah S. Eyler and two retired judges specially assigned full time to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, the Honorable Lawrence F. Rodowsky and the Honorable Charles E. Moylan, Jr.


Recognition

Listed in Benchmark Litigation, "40 & Under Hot List," Commercial, Labor and Employment, since 2021

Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Appellate Practice; Commercial Litigation, since 2021


Memberships

Bar Association of Baltimore City

Maryland Bar Foundation, Fellow

Maryland State Bar Association, Litigation Section


Events

Co-presenter, "Introduction to Federal Practice," Federal Bar Association - Maryland Chapter, 2019


Publications

Chapter Author, "Court of Appeals Review Other Than By Certiorari – Extraordinary Writs and Certified Questions," Appellate Practice for the Maryland Lawyer, (5th ed.), Maryland State Bar Association, 2018

Author, "Contract Killings to Choice of Venue: Recent Impact Decisions Panel," The Maryland Litigator, 2018

Co-author, "Responding to Discovery Subpoenas: Maryland," Thomson Reuters Practical Law, 2018

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


Outside the Office

Louis is the Organist and Director of Music at Holy Family Catholic Church in Randallstown, Maryland.

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.

In a major victory for a law firm client, prevailed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in challenging the appropriateness of a “filter team” of the U.S. Attorney’s Office to review files and emails confiscated from the client's office. The Fourth Circuit agreed, summarily reversing the District Court only two days after argument and granting all relief requested by the client. The case is In re: Search Warrant Issued June 13, 2019. Click here for the published opinion.

Obtained a substantial victory for the franchisor of international sales training programs in a case alleging breach of contract and fraud, and seeking compensatory damages in excess of $85 million, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Brought by a franchisee, the case concerned the creation and sale of intellectual property rights. Following six days of trial before Judge J. Frederick Motz in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the plaintiff agreed to a settlement in a sum representing less than ½ of Plaintiff’s claimed attorneys’ fees sought, and less than 1% Plaintiff’s claimed compensatory damages claim. The settlement achieved the client’s principal goal -- a complete termination of the relationship and all contracts between the parties.

In a major victory for Kramon & Graham's client, the City of Baltimore, the Court of Appeals of Maryland upheld local governments' rights to make reasonable prospective changes to their pension plans. Kramon & Graham represented the City continuously since it reformed the public safety unions' pension plan in 2010. At that time, the City faced dire financial circumstances that threatened its ability to provide core services to its citizens, and all relevant actors agreed the pension plan was actuarially unsound. Among other things, the changes involved increased length of service and contribution requirements for active employees and a new, guaranteed Cost of Living Adjustment formula to provide raises for retirees that replaced a variable benefit formula that was endangering the plan's ability to provide basic benefits. The unions filed suit in 2010 in federal court to challenge the reforms.  After a federal appellate court held in 2014 that the changes did not constitute impairments under the federal Constitution's Contract Clause, the public safety unions brought a state law breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. The circuit court determined that Maryland law permitted the City to make prospective changes for active members of the pension plan, and that these changes were reasonable; consequently, there was no breach of contract as to these members. The court also rejected the unions' experts' damages assumptions and instead accepted the damages model the City's expert developed, concluding that retirees and retirement-eligible plan members experienced approximately $30 million in damages from the change in plan. This amount was a small fraction of the damages the unions claimed, and the court ruled that many retirees and retirement-eligible members were not damaged by the changes but actually fared the same or better under the new tiered COLA than the variable benefit it replaced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's determination in all respects. Click here for the Court of Appeals opinion in Robert F. Cherry et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City.

News

Publications

Events

Recognition

professional_detail.inc