Barry Chenman: Hard Work Pays Dividends – I Love My Attorney Spotlight

Barry Chenman does not stop until he reaches his goals. Persistence is a key trait he has used to help him get to where he is today and it’s the same characteristic that he uses to ensure he wins cases for his clients. Barry is persistent. Plain and simple.

As a child, Barry was a ball of energy, bringing vitality and passion everywhere he went. His parents would describe him as energetic because he could never sit still for very long. After he finished one project, he would be on to the next.

That energy and passion, combined with his persistence makes Barry Chenman a formidable force in the courtroom. Barry is the kind of personal injury attorney that takes things personally. He will do anything he can to reach his goal.

When he is in court, he runs the room. He has power in the way he speaks out for his clients and gets them the justice they deserve. If he wasn’t an attorney, he would be a late-night talk show host.

Barry moved from South Jersey to South Florida when he was a young man, and he still considers it one of the best decisions he ever made. He has never looked back. The sunshine matches his bright personality.

Barry Chenman when he was a child, school photo

Barry thrived at the University of Miami, where he realized that his passionate personality and persistence would be a great fit for a career as a lawyer. Barry attended law school at Nova Southeastern – Shepard Broad Law Center. He took to it like a duck to water.

He was an active member of the Moot Court Honor Society and a part of the Nova Trial Association, scoring major victories in competitions for both groups. One of his favorite moments during law school was when he became the first NSU student to win the American Bar Association National Moot Court competition. He would eventually win the “Order of the Barristers Award” upon Graduation from Nova, a highly regarded and exclusive award that recognizes excellence and leadership as an advocate.

Preparation and evidence are key when it comes to reaching settlements in cases. Closing cases is something Barry looks forward to. He knows that his clients are just looking for compensation to help them get better and get their life back to normal quickly. That’s why he is constantly working on his clients’ cases day and night because the grind doesn’t stop.

When Barry isn’t fighting for his clients and settling their cases, he enjoys the nightlife in the Miami and Fort Lauderdale areas. However, during the pandemic, he explored the world of Netflix and found himself binging some awesome shows.


This attorney spotlight is part of a series to highlight the outstanding work and dedication that Steinger, Greene & Feiner attorneys deliver every day. 

I Love My Attorney

About the Author

Michael Feiner
Michael Feiner

Profile More Posts

Michael A. Feiner is a partner in the Fort Lauderdale office of Steinger, Greene & Feiner. Since being admitted to the Florida Bar in 2001, Michael has devoted his practice to representing plaintiffs throughout Florida in various tort and strict liability cases and has successfully litigated cases against national insurance companies, large public companies, and governmental agencies, resulting in tens of millions of dollars for his clients. He has handled all types of personal injury and wrongful death cases on behalf of plaintiffs, including automobile negligence, premises liability, medical malpractice, product liability, dog bites, and sexual harassment. Michael’s product liability case against Microsoft, as well as his representation of victims of sexual harassment and abuse by physicians, has garnered him important media attention at both the local and national levels. Michael is an experienced trial lawyer and successfully argued an appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. In the reported decision Ortlieb v. Butts, 849 So.2d 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Michael persuaded the Fourth District Court of Appeal that a directed verdict on liability was appropriate where the defendant did not rebut the presumption of negligence of a rear driver in a rear-end collision.