|
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.
|