On Friday, October 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ordered the disbarment of Attorney Erik Benjamin Cherdak of Gaithersburg, Maryland.
The case is styled Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Erik Benjamin Cherdak and was brought by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel under case no. 50 DB 2021.
The following are as summarized from the filing:
Cherdak has engaged in misconduct of lying before a Court at a hearing, repeatedly made lies upon lies in the case, and failed to prosecute the patents he had contracted with a client to prosecute. It was further found that Cherdak disobeyed an order of a bankruptcy court, which resulted in his being held in contempt. He was also found to have failed to remit funds owing to his client. Moreover, Cherdak failed to respond to ODC’s request for a statement of his position.
Because Cherdak’s misconduct took place in connection with court proceedings in Virginia (VA), Massachusetts (MA), Maryland (MD), and Connecticut (CT), the Court applied the rules in said states.
The charges cited Cherdak’s violation of the following rules of professional conduct:
MD RPC 1.3 and CT RPC 1.3, state that an attorney or lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.
MD RPC 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(2), and 1.4(b), which state, respectively, that an attorney or lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client’s informed consent is required, shall keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, and shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
CT RPC 1.4(a)(1), 1.4(a)(3) and 1.4(b) (same)
MD RPC 1.4(a)(3) and CT RPC 1.4(a)(4), which state that an attorney or lawyer shall promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
MD RPC 1.15(d) and CT ROC 1.15(e), which state that upon receiving funds in which a client or third persona has an interest, an attorney or lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person and promptly deliver to the client funds the client is entitled to receive.
MD RPC 8.4(b) and CT RPC 8.4(2), state that it is professional misconduct for an attorney or lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on that attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as an attorney in other respects.
MD RPC 8.4(c) and CT RPC 8.4(3), state that it is professional misconduct for an attorney or lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
VA RPC 3.1, which states that a lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
VA RPC 3.3(a)(1), which states that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal;
VA 3.3(a)(4), which states that a lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false;
VA RPC 8.4(b) and 8.4(c), which state, respectively, that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal or deliberately wrong act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law, or to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation which reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law.
MA RPC 3.1, which states that a lawyer shall not bring, continue, or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein unless there is a basis in law and fact that for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;
MA RPC 3.3(a)(1) and MA RPC 3.3(a)(3), which state, respectively, that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer, or offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false;
MA RPC 8.4(n), MA RPC 8.4(c), and MA (RPC 8.4(d), state, respectively, that is professional misconduct for a lawyer to commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, and trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, or to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
Pa. R.D.E 203(b)(7), which states that failure by a respondent-attorney without good cause to respond to Disciplinary Counsel’s request under Disciplinary Board Rules, § 87.7(b) for a statement of the respondent-attorney’s position is grounds for discipline.
The Report and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Board states:
“Here, the Board considers the Committee’s unanimous recommendation to disbar Respondent for his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct in four states in connection with his engagement in an extensive scheme to defraud Fitistics, LLC, and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Sean McKirdy; his perjury in a court case; his false statements to a judge; his submission of false documents to a court; and his violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement for his failure to respond to Petitioner’s investigation of the above misconduct.”
Respondent did not file exceptions to the Committee’s recommendation.
By these acts, and upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, the Court ruled against Cherdak in relation to the above-cited Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Order reads:
“Erik Benjamin Cherdak is disbarred from the Bar of this Commonwealth. Respondent shall comply with the provisions of Pa.R.D.E.217 and pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).”
Prior to this disbarment, Mr. Erik Benjamin Cherdak practiced in Gaithersburg, Maryland. He has been admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, license no. 66669, as well as in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Virginia.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
