Kim Parker, Esq.

Attorney at law
  • Phone: 410-234-2621
  • Fax: 410-234-2612

Kim’s practice focuses on counseling the firm’s clients regarding bankruptcy, personal injury and business matters. Prior to joining the Law Office of Kim Parker, P.A., Kim was a Trial Attorney with the Law Offices of Norris C. Ramsey, P.A., where she litigated various matters in the Circuit and District Courts of Maryland.

Kim is an experienced Trial Attorney who has tried numerous cases in the District and before juries in Circuit Courts of Maryland.

She is a well-respected lawyer and litigator.

"The fight for justice against corruption is never easy. It never has been and never will be. It exacts a toll on our self, our families, our friends, and especially our children. In the end, I believe, as in my case, the price we pay is well worth holding on to our dignity."

Frank Serpico

EDUCATION

  • University of Baltimore School Of Law, J.D., 1993
  • John Jay College Of Criminal Law. B.S. Criminal Justice, Dean’s List, 1987
  • United States Army, 1985

PRACTICE AREAS

  • 50% dedicated to litigation.

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE

  • Maryland
  • United States District Court for the District of Maryland
  • District of Columbia

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

  • National Alliance Of Antigua And Barbados.
  • Board Member for the HOSEA Corporation.
  • Maryland Bar Association
  • District of Columbia Bar Association
  • Monumental Bar Association

Appellate Cases

Smith v. RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC., No. 0936, September Term, 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 19, 2016).

Hyperlink to Case: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16442980383879621689&hl=en&as_sdt=80006

Statement of Case: Kim Parker won reversal of an order granting summary judgment on behalf of her client in a premises liability case against Rite Aid Corporation. The Court found, and rightfully so, that “In conclusion, we cannot say that “a fair minded jury” could not, based on the record, that Rite Aid breached its duty to Ms. Smith, and that she was not contributory negligent and did not assume the risk. The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Rite Aid”.

Nickens v. MT. VERNON REALTY GROUP, LLC, 41 A.3d 570, 425 Md. 396 (2012)

Hyperlink to Case: https://www.courts.state.md.us/data/opinions/coa/2012/7a12.pdf

Statement of Case: Kim Parker and the Maryland Public Justice Center won reversal of the grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a foreclosure purchaser and foreclosure attorney. The Court concluded that a property owner must exercise a similar reasonableness in the disposition of an occupant’s personal property that remains within the dwelling. The published decision resulted in the Maryland legislature, reversing a century old law that permitted Maryland landlords to use peaceable self-help to evict residential tenants. (See Real Property Article 7-112 [or 113], 8-216, and 8A-1102 (Effective June 1, 2013)

SUTTON-WITHERSPOON v. SAFE MANAGEMENT, INC., No. 2589, September Term, 2016 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 26, 2019)

Hyperlink to Case: https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2019/2589s16.pdf

Statement of Case: The firm, along with co-counsel, obtained reversal, in a published opinion, of the Circuit Court of Baltimore’s grant of the Baltimore Ravens Motion for Summary Judgment. Ms. Parker’s and Mr. Iamele’s clients were injured when they were trampled at a parade celebrating the 2013 Baltimore Ravens Superbowl Win. The Court of Special Appeals found that it was well settled in Maryland law that one who invites another upon his premises owes the invitee the duty of exercising reasonable care to see that the premises is reasonably safe and that storekeepers have a duty to protect against possible occurrences. The court said the defendants “solicited” the extraordinarily large crowd and despite having the ability to handle large crowds, it permitted the crowd to “become too dense for proper control or safe exit.” The Court also said that the trial court had not properly considered the defendants’ argument that their injuries resulted from a danger that was reasonably foreseeable because the defendants decided to host an “unticketed” and highly publicized Super Bowl celebration that would draw large crowds and then allegedly failed to provide adequate crowd controls.

Contact Us

If you or someone you care have been treated wrongly or injured, let a knowledgeable, experienced attorney will guide you and fight for your case. Don’t miss out on the justice you deserve. Contact us today at 410-234-2621. Let’s talk about your needs and how we can help.

Contact Us Now