Steven M. Chait, PLC - Waterford, MI

As a follow-up to Mr. Steven Chait's (Reg # 33747) legal services. It was apparent Mr. Chait was not looking at the case filings. During my case, Mr. Kevin Even (Reg # 38599), the attorney representing the defendant uploaded a range of unredacted documents to PACER. For readers that are unfamiliar with the system, the purpose is below. (The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service provides electronic public access to federal court records. PACER provides the public with instantaneous access to more than 1 billion documents filed at all federal courts). Note once the records are placed on PACER, the information is indexed on the web in addition to third party legal compiler websites. However, Mr. Chait failed to look at these sensitive filings. What is also extraordinary, I had to notify Mr. Chait about the incident after discovering these PII unredacted documents on the web, however it had been already months later and therefore the unredacted data dump by Mr. Kevin Even was not curable. The range of unredacted documents involving PII data that Mr. Kevin Even uploaded was personal identifying information including but not limited to social security numbers, date of births and addresses. Most importantly, the unredacted documents also contained a three-year-old PII data. Subsequently my family was forced to place security freezes on credit reports and alerts with other relevant institutions. Opinion: A word of caution to prospective clients. Do not engage the services, you will not receive effective legal representation.

During our case, Mr. Chait was asked to schedule the deposition for the defendant multiple times. We filed the case as a result of our former aircraft management company was not performing maintenance to the aircraft but collecting the money for the scheduled maintenance tasks. The defendant was rather deferring the inspections without notification to the lessee (Plaintiff). The management company deposition was essential to our case and Mr. Chait missed the deadline for the deposition. Even so, the defendant's counsel was less than 11 miles away from Mr. Chait's office. We feel this deposition was intentionally missed for unknows reasons at this point. What was the point of the case without the deposition of the management company contractually responsible for the maintenance of our aircraft

I retained attorney Steve Chait as plaintiff’s counsel to represent myself and my company in an aviation lawsuit for breach of contract against Paradigm Jet Management and Jetaway Air Service. That representation was later expanded to represent my company in front of the Dept. of Transportation (DOT) in a civil enforcement action. His background seemed to make him an obvious choice for this case however he proved to be a complete disappointment. His services were terminated in the final stages of the lawsuit due to an overt act of placing the welfare of opposing counsel over the welfare of his clients and his violation of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure causing the public filing of personal information that was required to be redacted from his pleadings. This error was done repeatedly and made worse by his failure to object or cure the very same conduct from both opposing attorneys. Other errors made by Chait during the course of his lawsuit representation involved his failure to timely review discovery material, his failure to retain copies of material provided during discovery before returning it to the opposition without good cause, failure to recognize his subject -matter knowledge limitations and retain experts necessary for the case, and his failure to accomplish a critical deposition before the close of the discovery period. His representation in front of the DOT was ineffective and negligible. An aviation expert was retained to provide the technical-legal memorandum that produced a much more favorable result with that federal agency. Chait’s representation was weak and negligent at best, or legal malpractice at worst. He was provided more than enough information to effectively and aggressively litigate this case. As a result of collateral actions, we engaged in to develop a defense charter certificate holder Paradigm Jet Management, and several pilot and mechanic employees are now involved in FAA enforcement actions pursuant to an investigation conducted by the Dept. of Transportation Office of the Inspector General made necessary due to the lack of FAA oversight of Paradigm Jet Management. That investigation substantiated our technical claims presented in the lawsuit. I would never utilize Chait in the future for any legal representation, especially if opposing counsel is attorney Dean Greenblatt. Chait will not engage in any effective representation against Greenblatt but will do everything possible not to challenge or embarrass Greenblatt and place his welfare over the client's.