Strategic Legal Advocacy for Complex Disputes
Litigation is more than courtroom appearances — it’s strategic problem-solving, risk management, and advocacy on behalf of clients facing high-stakes disputes. At Bean, Kinney & Korman, our Litigation practice provides seasoned representation in federal and state courts, arbitration, mediation, and administrative proceedings.
We help individuals, businesses, organizations, and professionals resolve disputes involving contracts, commercial relationships, property rights, fiduciary duties, intellectual property, government enforcement actions, and more. From early case evaluation and pre-litigation negotiation to jury trials and appellate advocacy, our attorneys craft tailored strategies that protect rights, preserve value, and achieve results.
Whether you are defending a claim or asserting your rights, our litigation team combines deep legal knowledge with practical experience across industries and forums.
Core Litigation Practice Areas
Business & Corporate Litigation
Disputes arising from contracts, governance, fiduciary duties, shareholder conflicts, partnership dissolutions, breach of warranties, and complex commercial relationships.
Commercial Landlord-Tenant
Representation in lease disputes, eviction proceedings, holdover issues, rent disputes, breach of lease claims, and enforcement of commercial property rights.
Collections
Aggressive and strategic debt recovery, judgment enforcement, creditor rights protection, and collection litigation.
IP Litigation (Trademark & Copyright)
Protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights involving trademark and copyright disputes. Altough we are happy to provide referrals, we do not handle patent litigation or patent prosecution — but we aggressively represent clients in trademark and copyright enforcement and defense.
Bankruptcy Litigation & Avoidance Action Defense
Litigation arising in insolvency contexts, including fraudulent transfer defenses, preference claims, creditor disputes, plan confirmation contests, and related avoidance actions.
E-Discovery
Strategic planning and management of electronic discovery, data preservation, information governance, defensible production strategies, and motion practice involving e-discovery disputes.
Civil Investigative Demands & White-Collar Investigations
Defense and response strategy for Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs), government inquiries, regulatory investigations, and compliance reviews in civil and white-collar contexts.
Qui Tam & False Claims Act Defense
Defense of whistleblower-initiated qui tam actions under the False Claims Act, response to government investigations, settlement negotiations, and litigation strategy.
Fiduciary Litigation
Disputes involving trustees, executors, guardians, directors, and officers — including breaches of fiduciary duty, removal proceedings, and contested fiduciary accounting.
Local Counsel Services
Court-specific representation and support for out-of-state counsel, including procedural guidance and document filings across state and federal courts of Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.
Real Estate Litigation
Litigation involving real property disputes, boundary and title issues, easements, land use conflicts, commercial leases, and development-related controversies.
Construction Litigation
Litigation arising from construction projects, contracts, mechanic’s lien enforcement and defenses, payment disputes, delay claims, breach of contract, and contractor/vendee disputes.
Who We Represent
Our litigation team represents:
- Small, mid-sized and large businesses
- Closely held and family-owned companies
- Corporate executives and fiduciaries
- Financial institutions and lenders
- Government contractors and subcontractors
- Professional services firms
- Real estate developers and property owners
- Franchise and multi-location operators
- Nonprofit and association entities
- Individuals and professionals facing personal disputes
We tailor litigation strategy to each client’s priorities, risk tolerance, and business goals.
Industries Served
Litigation often intersects with industry-specific dynamics. We regularly handle disputes in:
- Commercial real estate & development
- Construction & infrastructure
- Financial services & lending
- Government contracting
- Technology & professional services
- Healthcare & regulated industry sectors
- Hospitality & franchise systems
- Retail & distribution
- Nonprofit & association environments
Our industry awareness strengthens our advocacy and informs strategic decision-making at every stage of litigation.
Litigation FAQs
When should I consult litigation counsel?
You should consult litigation counsel as soon as you believe a dispute may arise, when a dispute arises, when a demand letter is received, when contract rights are threatened, when potential liability exceeds a threshold of risk, or when complex procedural or jurisdictional issues emerge. Early counseling preserves options and enhances strategic planning.
What is the difference between mediation, arbitration, and trial?
Mediation is a facilitated negotiation with a neutral third party; arbitration is a private adjudication outside of court with binding or non-binding outcomes; trial is formal litigation in state or federal court with a judge or jury. Each forum has strategic trade-offs in cost, timing, confidentiality, and enforceability.
How long does commercial litigation usually take?
Litigation timelines vary widely based on complexity, jurisdiction, discovery needs, motion practice, and potential appeals. Some cases resolve in months through settlement or alternative dispute resolution, while others may take several years to reach final judgment.
What is avoidance action defense in bankruptcy litigation?
In bankruptcy, avoidance actions seek to undo certain pre-petition transfers (preferences, fraudulent transfers). Defense involves demonstrating that transfers were legitimate, outside statutory look-back periods, or protected by safe harbors.
Can businesses recover attorney’s fees in litigation?
Recovery of attorney’s fees depends on contract terms, statutory entitlements, or court discretion. Many contracts include fee-shifting provisions that allow a prevailing party to recover fees in commercial disputes. Some statutes provide for attorney’s fees and special damages. Courts have discretion over the types and amounts of fees to award.
Representative Matters
1900 Mkt. LLC v. Blackfyre S.A., 2023 U.S. Dist. Lexis 233367 (2023)
View document (PDF)ADI Constr. of Va. LLC v. Bordewick, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97708 (E.D. Va. July 12, 2013)
View document (PDF)ATCS Int’l LLC v. Jefferson Contr. Corp., 807 F. Supp. 2d 516 (E.D. Va. 2011)
View document (PDF)Auto. Fin. Corp. v. Bayramov, No. 24-1075, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12562 (4th Cir. May 24, 2024)
View document (PDF)Barris, et al v. Kenswick Homes, LLC, 268 Va. 67. 59 S.E.2d 54 (2004)
View document (PDF)Bengtsson v. Bingtuan Yin Xiangling Kong (In re Bingtuan Yin Xiangling Kong), E.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2022
View document (PDF)Berrios v. Circle Group, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192900 (E.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2020); 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225895 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2020)
Best Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Eckert & Ziegler Nuclitec GmbH, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100323 (E.D. Va. Sept. 7, 2011)
View document (PDF)Bindra v. Michael Bowman & Assocs., Inc. 58 Va. Cir. 47 (2002)
View document (PDF)Brenco Enterprises, Inc. et. al v. Takeout Taxi Franchising Systems, Inc. et al, No. 177164, 2003 Va. Cir. LEXIS 86 at *1 (May 2, 2003)
View document (PDF)Busby v. Crown Supply, 896 F.2d 833 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued the appeal and drafted the brief of appelant. The Fourth Circuit held, in a civil RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) , that the plantiff’s injury need not derive solely from the use of the investment funds, but may also arise from the fraudulent activity, itself. The court also, sua sponte, sitting en banc, reversed a previous panel holding and found that, in a section 1962(a) claim, the racketeering enterprise and defendant may be the same entity.
Casey Indus. v. Seaboard Sur. Co., No. 1:06cv249, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22519 at *1 (E.D. Va. Apr. 20, 2006)
View document (PDF)C.F. Trust, Inc. v. First Flight Ltd. P’ship, 111 F. Supp. 2d 734 (E.D. Va. 2000)
View document (PDF)Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. IMG Exeter Assoc. Ltd. Pshp., No. 92-1440, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 2052 at *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 8, 1993)
View document (PDF)Colonial Beach Yacht Ctr., Inc. v. United States, 700 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Va. March 23, 2010)
Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r of Va. v. Ourisman Dodge, Inc., 73 Va. Cir. 485 (2007)
View document (PDF)Crosby v. First Bank, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999)
View document (PDF)Davis v. Gulf Oil Corp., 485 A.2d 160 (D.C. 1984)
View document (PDF)D.C. McClain, Inc. v. Arlington County, 249 Va. 131 (1995)
View document (PDF)Disco, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Am., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227781 (E.D. Va. March 22, 2017)
Dysart v. Sunnyside Dev., LLC, 73 Va. Cir. 210 (2007)
View document (PDF)Eat Good Do Good, LLC v. Pellegrino Food Prods. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 189538 (E.D. Va. 2014)
View document (PDF)Ellis v. James V. Hurson Associates, Inc., 565 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1989)
View document (PDF)Estate of Patterson v. Sharek, 924 A.2d 1005 (D.C. 2007)
View document (PDF)Far East Bank v. Dang, 257 Va. 524 (1999)
View document (PDF)Fed. Hill Homeowners Ass’n v. Cmty. Ass’n Underwriters of Am., Inc., 384 Fed. Appx. 209 (4th Cir. Va. 2010); 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115407 (E.D. Va. Oct. 28, 2010)
View document (PDF)Flick Mortg. Investors, Inc. v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., No. 3:09CV125-MR-DSC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127187 at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 18, 2009)
View document (PDF)Funny Guy LLC v. Lecego, LLC, 2016 Va. LEXIS 82 (Va. June 13, 2016)
View document (PDF)Gallimore v. Washington, 666 A.2d 1200 (D.C. 1995)
View document (PDF)Garcia v. Suda, 94 Va. Cir. 246 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2016)
View document (PDF)Garcia v. Suda, No. 1:15-cv-01000, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194373 (E.D. Va. July 1, 2016)
View document (PDF)George & Co., LLC v. Imagination Entm’t Ltd., 575 F.3d 383 (4th Cir. 2009)
Lead counsel for the appellee and argued the appeal for the appellee before the Fourth Circuit. The court found that a trademark based upon an abbreviation (acronym) was not infringed by the use of a longer phrase from which abbreviation was derived. The court also found that there was no confusion caused by the appellee’s use of larger descriptive phrase from which the appellant’s trademark abbreviation was based.
G&G, LLC v. Thorburn Ltd. P’ship (October 30, 2019)
View document (PDF)Glassman v. Arlington County, 628 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2010)
View document (PDF)Glob. Tel*Link Corp. v. JACS Sols., Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. Lexis 229892 (E.D. Va. 2023)
View document (PDF)GMAC v. Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53595 (W.D.N.C. 2010)
View document (PDF)Gold v. Gateway Bank, F.S.B., No. 12-1935, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11084, at *1 (4th Cir. June 3, 2013)
View document (PDF)Gold v. Old Republic Nat’l Title Ins. Co. (In re Taneja), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4203 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Nov. 23, 2010)
View document (PDF)Himmelfarb v. Greenspoon, 411 A.2d 979 (D.C. 1980)
Principal drafter of the brief of appellee. The D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of claims based on plaintiff’s failure to respond to discovery and established the standards for invalidating wills in the District of Columbia based on allegations of fraud and undue duress.
Hyundai Emigration Corp. v. Empower-Visa, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142402 (E.D. Va. June 17, 2009)
In re Ayoub_2019 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1059 (June 14, 2019)
View document (PDF)In re Davis Distributors, Inc., 861 F.2d 416 (4th Cir. 1988)
View document (PDF)In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Sec. Litig., 115 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Va. 2000)
View document (PDF)In re Orbital Sciences. Corp. Secs. Litig., 188 F.R.D. 237 (E.D. Va. 1999)
View document (PDF)Kapani v. Rana, 55 Va. Cir. 16 (2001)
View document (PDF)Kirchner v. McAninley, 79 Va. Cir. 222 (2009)
View document (PDF)Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Merit Title Co., LLC, 549 F. Supp. 2d 90 (D.D.C. 2008)
View document (PDF)Lee v. Mulford, 269 Va. 562 (Va. 2005)
View document (PDF)Lerch Bates, Inc. v. Michael Blades & Assocs., Ltd., 2023 U.S. Dist. Lexis 171973 (D.D.C. 2023)
View document (PDF)Matrix Mech. Corp. v. Harrison, Nos. 2068-96-4; 2069-96-4, 1997 Va. App. LEXIS 176 at *1 (Mar. 25, 1997)
View document (PDF)Mega Int’l Commerce Bank v. MCAP Capital, L.L.C., 74 Va. Cir. 132 (2007)
View document (PDF)Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., No. CCB-05-2217, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65428 at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 30, 2006)
View document (PDF)Mercantile-Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., No. CCB-05-2217, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23685 at *1 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2007)
View document (PDF)Mikkilineni v. Gibson-Thomas Eng’g Co., No. 02-1118, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5754 at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2003)
View document (PDF)Millennium in re Inc. T/A Century 21 New Millennium, No. CL82028, 2009 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1571 (Prince William Cir. Ct. May 8, 2009)
View document (PDF)M & R Inv. Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 484 F. Supp. 1041 (D. Nev. 1980)
Trial co-counsel and drafted the substantive motions and trial related pleadings where the trustees of a multi-employer pension fund prevailed in a suit by a disappointed borrower because the loan would have constituted a prohibited transaction under ERISA.
Munhuu v. Joiner, 111 Va. Cir. 227 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2023)
View document (PDF)Noor v. Centreville Bank, 193 Md. App. 160 (2010)
View document (PDF)O’Brien v. Flick, No. 24-61529-CIV-DAMIAN, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10625, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 10, 2025)
View document (PDF)Oleszko v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 243 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2001)
Drafted the brief of the amicus curiae. The Ninth Circuit adopted the reasoning in the amicus curie brief and extended the psychotherapist-patient testimonial privilege to employee assistance professionals.
Oral Argument at 19:30, Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc., No. 0116-13-4, available at http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/oral_arguments/2014/oct/140242.mp3 (Va. October 17, 2014)
View document (PDF)Ortiz v. Flattery, 63 Va. Cir. 309 (2003)
View document (PDF)Peterson v. Atlantic Funding Corp., No. 97-1680, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 27283 at *1 (4th Cir. 1998)
View document (PDF)Potomac Electric Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, etc., 606 F.2d 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
Argued the appeal before the D.C. Circuit and drafted the brief of appellant before that court and the brief of the respondant before the United States Supreme Court. The D.C. Circuit held that, in a federal workmen’s compensation case, an injured employee was entitled to the greater of the benefit for the loss of the use of a scheduled body part or the formula benefit for all other injuries. The United States Supreme Court reversed that decision.
Prof’l Massage Training Ctr., Inc. v. Accreditation Alliance of Career Schs. & Colleges, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6523(E.D. Va. Jan. 17, 2014); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92497 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2013); 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190203 (E.D. Va. Oct. 31, 2012); 20
View document (PDF)Prudence Holman Waters, etc., et al. v. Meredith H. Lewis, etc., et al. (April 15, 2025)
View document (PDF)Pulte Home Corp. v. Parex, Inc., 265 Va. 518 (2003)
View document (PDF)Qorvis Communs., LLC v. Wilson, 549 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2008)
View document (PDF)Quality Properties v. Trump, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 115225 (W.D. Va. 2012)
View document (PDF)Ramirez v. Solomon Edwards Grp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134964 (E.D. Va. July 17, 2008)
Renkey v. County Bd., 272 Va. 369 (2006)
View document (PDF)Roy J. Bucholtz, P.C. v. Computer Based Sys., 255 Va. 349 (1998)
View document (PDF)Sami v. Varn, 260 Va. 280 (2000)
View document (PDF)Scharpenberg v. Carrington, 686 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2010)
View document (PDF)Smith v. Miller & Smith, 2011 Va. Cir. Lexis 186 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2011)
View document (PDF)Spectrum Healthcare v. Bd. Of Supervisors, 2011 Va. Lexis 252 (2011)
View document (PDF)Sport & Health Co. v. Club Props. Co., No. 98-628, 1999 Va. Cir. LEXIS 563 at *1 (Apr. 27, 1999)
View document (PDF)Technology & Mgmt. Servs. v. EPA, No. 96-1386, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 2781 at *1 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 1997)
View document (PDF)Tegg Corp. v. Beckstrom Elec. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52184 (W.D. Pa. July 1, 2008); 650 F. Supp. 2d 413 (W.D. Pa. 2008)
View document (PDF)Trimark Ptnrs., L.L.C. v. HST, LL.C., 39 Va. Cir. 415 (Va.Cir.Ct., 1996)
View document (PDF)Twin Towers Plaza Tenants Ass’n v. Capitol Park Assocs., L.P., 894 A.2d 1113 (D.C. 2006)
View document (PDF)Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., 202 F.3d 337 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
Principal drafter of the brief of intervener. The court adopted the arguments in the intervener’s brief and upheld the board’s determination that a railroad’s rates in conjunction with a bottleneck movement were unreasonable.
United States English Language Ctr. v. Accrediting Council for Higher Educ. & Training, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226368 (E.D. Va. Sept. 11, 2019)
Wincopia Farms, LP v. G&G, LLC (In re Wincopia Farms, LP), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25522 (4th Cir. Dec. 2012)
View document (PDF)W. Va. Bus. Coll. v. Accrediting Council for Indep. Colls. & Schs., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162202 (Sept. 21, 2018); 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102940 (E.D. Va. June 18, 2019)
View document (PDF)Yelp, Inc. v. Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc., 62 Va. App. 678 (2014)
View document (PDF)Zipf v. Zipf, 8 Va. App. 387 (1989)
Argued the appeal and drafted the brief of appellant. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court for taking into account the value of an equitable distribution award in determining the amount of spousal support awarded to the wife.
Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc., 2024 Va. Cir. Lexis 1 (Fairfax 2024)
View document (PDF)Blogs
Videos
News & Publications
Recent Highlights
Blog Post
Employment Law Landmines for Federal Contractors
Event
Nonprofit Forum
Video
The BKK Beat, Episode 27: Employment and IP Law in the News
News / Publication
2026 Super Lawyers
Blog Post
What is Worrying Our Nonprofit Clients – Part III: Staffing and Talent
Event
On Board
Video
The BKK Beat, Episode 26: Employment and IP Law in the News
News / Publication
