Mark Oakley

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.

• 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.

District of Columbia

District of Columbia Bar

Since 1989

Maryland

Since 1988

University of Maryland - Baltimore

J.D. (1987) | Law

1984 - 1987

University of Maryland - College Park

B.A. (1984) | English

1980 - 1984

District of Columbia Bar

Member

1989 - Current

Maryland State Bar Association

Member

1988 - Current

Bar Association of Montgomery County

Member

1988 - Current

Q. Why is a chemist test requested for gun charges defense?

April 22, 2025

A: Most criminal defense lawyers file omnibus motions covering every type of demand for every tpe of chemist the state may attempt to use, regardless of whether any such test was performed or even relevant to the charges. This way, they don't miss requesting the prsence of the chemist in any case where it might be necessary. Better to file the request in every case and be safe, without having to think about it, than to forget to file in a case where it was needed.

Q. I have recently gotten two expungements on pbj’s in md. I recently got one letter back from CJIS saying expungement is

April 22, 2025

A: Yes, is deletes the entries in the FBI's nationwide database used by all state and local police agencies and for private employer background checks. The only exception is when the FBI itself performs a criminal background check (e.g., for federal employment, immigration, security clearance, etc.), in which case its internal database does not have to comply with state ordered expungments of criminal offenses. However, the nationwide FBI database used by everyone else does comply with state ordered expungements.

Q. Do I need court approval to move from Maryland to Florida with sole custody?

April 22, 2025

A: Notice of intent to relocate with your child may be required in (1) provided for in your signed marital settlement and custody agreement; or (2) provided for in your divorce decree or custody order. Here is the Maryland statute that addresses the issue, which provides a 90 day advance notice in cases where the court has included it in the custody order (FYI: inclusion of this requirement is fairly standard in all Maryland custody awards):

MD Code, Family Law, § 9-106 Notice of intent to relocate

In general

(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, in any custody or visitation proceeding the court may include as a condition of a custody or visitation order a requirement that either party provide advance written notice of at least 90 days to the court, the other party, or both, of the intent to relocate the permanent residence of the party or the child either within or outside the State.

(2) The court may prescribe the form and content of the notice requirement.

(3) If the court orders that notice be given to the other party, a mailing of the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of the other party shall be deemed sufficient to comply with the notice requirement.

(4)(i) If either party files a petition regarding a proposed relocation within 20 days of the written notice of the relocation required by paragraph (1) of this subsection, the court shall set a hearing on the petition on an expedited basis.

(ii) If either party files a petition regarding a proposed relocation that would significantly interfere with the other parent's ability to maintain the predetermined parenting time schedule, the court shall set a hearing on the petition on an expedited basis.

Exception to notice requirement

(b) On a showing that notice would expose the child or either party to abuse as defined in § 4-501 of this article or for any other good cause the court shall waive the notice required by this section.

Exception to time limit

(c) If either party is required to relocate in less than the 90-day period specified in the notice requirement, the court may consider as a defense to any action brought for a violation of the notice requirement that:

(1) relocation was necessary due to financial or other extenuating circumstances; and

(2) the required notice was given within a reasonable time after learning of the necessity to relocate.

Violation a factor in custody or visitation proceedings

(d) The court may consider any violation of the notice requirement as a factor in determining the merits of any subsequent proceeding involving custody or visitation. ... Read More