Barton D. Moorstein

Mr. Moorstein provides legal representation with a concentration in family law, while also representing clients in their employment, real estate, personal injury, estates and trust and business issues. With over 43 years experience practicing in Maryland and Washington , D.C. Mr. Moorstein practices an individualized approach to the law, developing a flexible strategy best suited to his clients’ needs and goals. While dispute resolution through agreement is preferred, Mr. Moorstein also provides high quality courtroom representation. Recognized by Superlawyers and the Washingtonian Magazine as one of the top lawyers in the area, and frequently qualified as an expert in disputed attorneys fee cases, Mr. Moorstein and the firm of Blank, Moorstein & Lipshutz, L.L.P., and its dedicated professionals, involves clients in all aspects of their case and assures that clients are well-informed at each step of the process.

Mr. Moorstein has also litigated cases and authored numerous briefs that have resulted in landmark reported decisions.

In the area of Family Law, these cases include:

• Campitelli v. Johnston, 134 Md. App. 689, 761 A.2d 369 (2000) (Alimony);
• Weiner v. Weiner, 605 A.2d 18 (D.C. 1992) (Child Support);
• Li v. Lee, 210 Md. App. 73, 62 A. 3d 212 (2013) (Enforceability of Separation Agreement)
• Motamedi v. Adnani, Maryland Court of Special Appeals, Case No. 1190, Sept. Term, 2020 Oral Argument here (Extension of Rehabilitative Alimony).

In the area of Employment law, these cases include:

• Programmers’ Consortium v. Clark , 180 Md.App. 506, 951 A.2d 914, 13 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1571 (2008)(Attorney’s fee award in wage claim case). Mr. Moorstein’s oral argument before the Maryland Court of Appeals may be viewed here
• Newmyer v. Sidwell Friends School, et al., 128 A.3d 1023 (2015)) (Tortious Interference with an Employment Contract)
• Grove v. Loomis Sayles, Inc., 85 A.3d 832 (D.C. 2014) (Age Discrimination)
• Cheek v. United Healthcare, 374 Md. 81, 821 A.2d 369 (2003); Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract found unenforceable
• Romano & Mitchell, Chtd. v. LaPointe, 146 Md.App. 440, 807 A.2d 139 (2002); (Employment Dispute)
• In the Matter of: Map Maintenance and Construction, Case No.: 86-DBA-0178 (Department of Labor, 1986)

In the area of First Amendment rights, these cases include:

• Meshel v. Ohev Shalom Talmud Torah, 869 A.2d 343 (D.C. 2005); Arbitration mandated in religious dispute

In the area of Procedural rights, these cases include:

• Jones v. Fondufe, No. 04-CV-799 (2006) (Intervention)

In the area of Commercial Litigation:

• Cushman & Wakefield of Maryland, Inc. et al. v. DRV Greentec, LLC, 463 Md. 1, 203 A.3d 835 (2019) (Third Party Beneficiary Rights)

Litigation Percentage

95% of Practice Devoted to Litigation

Articles

• Maryland Trial Reporter Summer 2015
• Maryland Trial Reporter Summer 2016