OLR Compendium > Public Reprimand of Michael L. Chernin

Public Reprimand of Michael L. Chernin

2009-OLR-18

In February of 2007, a man received a municipal disorderly conduct citation. He wished to contest the ticket and on his own entered a not guilty plea. Thereafter, upon referral by a mutual friend, the man contacted Atty. Michael Chernin for assistance. Atty. Chernin did not request and the man did not pay a fee.

A pre-trial hearing was set for May 14, 2007. Atty. Chernin agreed to appear for the pre-trial on the man’s behalf. The man offered to also appear, but Atty. Chernin advised him that his personal appearance was not necessary. Atty. Chernin failed to appear at the pre-trial and a default judgment was entered against his client. Atty. Chernin’s efforts to resolve the matter prior to the pre-trial by speaking to the city attorney assigned to the case were unsuccessful and he therefore decided not to appear. However, the client was not aware of this decision, which was contrary to his wish to contest the ticket. The client believed that Atty. Chernin was pursuing the matter on his behalf.

Shortly after the pre-trial, the man received notice of the default judgment and the $175.00 fine assessed against him. Upon receipt of the notice, the man contacted Atty. Chernin for an explanation. Atty. Chernin apologized and told his client that he would take care of the matter by attempting to negotiate a stipulation with the City Attorney’s Office. Throughout the year following the entry of the default judgment, the man continued to contact Atty. Chernin for updates regarding his case. He placed over 35 calls to Atty. Chernin but succeeded in speaking with him on only a handful of occasions for a few minutes and obtained no substantive information. Atty. Chernin continued to tell the man that he would attempt to work out a stipulation. Atty. Chernin took no other action and gave the client no advice as to how he might handle the matter on his own. Eventually the city certified the debt for the tax refund interception program and the Department of Revenue intercepted the man’s tax refund in partial payment of the fine. The client then filed a grievance.

By failing to appear for the pre-trial to contest the citation and instead allowing a default judgment to be entered against his client, Atty. Chernin failed to abide by his client’s decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and thereby violated SCR 20:1.2(a). Also, by failing to appear for the pre-trial and by failing to pursue the case further following the entry of the default judgment, Atty. Chernin violated SCR 20:1.3, which requires an attorney to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Lastly, Atty. Chernin failed to communicate with his client and respond to his requests for information. This conduct violated former SCR 20:1.4(a) for the period up to July 1, 2007 and current SCR 20:1.4(a)(4) for the period beginning July 1, 2007.

Atty. Chernin has been privately reprimanded on four prior occasions for similar misconduct. The reprimands were issued in 1993, 1997, 1998 and 1999. Atty. Chernin’s disciplinary history is a significant aggravating factor in determining the appropriate sanction for his misconduct in this matter.

In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Atty. Michael Chernin is hereby publicly reprimanded.