Preview:

(01/13/2006) "See News Release 002 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 05-B-1463 IN RE: CLAYTON PAUL SCHNYDER

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM
This disciplinary matter arises from two sets of formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") against respondent, Clayton Paul Schnyder, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana.

FORMAL CHARGES The first set of formal charges, consisting of one count and bearing the disciplinary board's docket number 02-DB-129, was filed on December 11, 2002. The second set of formal charges, consisting of one count and bearing the disciplinary board's docket number 03-DB-064, was filed on September 25, 2003. The two sets were consolidated by order of the hearing committee chair dated October 14, 2003.

02-DB-129 The Ceasor Matter In November 1999, Kewana Ceasor hired respondent to handle a personal injury matter on a contingency basis. Thereafter, respondent failed to diligently pursue the matter. More specifically, he failed to obtain a settlement or timely file suit on his client's behalf. Additionally, respondent failed to communicate with Ms. Ceasor about the status of the matter. Several times, respondent told Ms. Ceasor he

would call her back after reviewing the file, but he failed to do so. He also did not inform her that he failed to timely file suit. In January 2002, Ms. Ceasor filed a disciplinary complaint against respondent because of her inability to obtain information from him. Despite receiving notice of the complaint, respondent did not reply to the ODC's request for information, necessitating the ODC to issue a subpoena in order to obtain his sworn statement. During the sworn statement, respondent admitted that suit was not timely filed. The ODC alleges respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.3 (failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client), 1.4 (failure to communicate with a client), 3.2 (failure to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation), and 8.1(c) (failure to cooperate with the ODC in its investigation) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

03-DB-064 The Magee Matter In 1998, Veronica Magee hired respondent to assist her in pursuing an insurance claim following the collapse of her roof. After being retained, respondent failed to answer Ms. Magee's telephone calls. Because she was unable to obtain information about her case, Ms. Magee eventually retained new counsel. In addition to the insurance matter, respondent also represented Ms. Magee in two other legal matters. One of these matters involved a lawsuit arising out of an automobile accident, in which Ms. Magee was the defendant. On the day the case was set for trial, Ms. Magee's sister was killed. Ms. Magee informed respondent she would not be able to attend the trial. However, respondent failed to file for a

2

continuance or appear at the trial on his client's behalf, resulting in judgment being rendered against Ms. Magee. In the other matter, respondent represented Ms. Magee in a civil suit filed against a restaurant based on a claim that her car was stolen from the restaurant's valet parking. Respondent obtained a default judgment for $46,000. However, the defendants moved for and obtained a new trial. Following the grant of the new trial, defendants propounded discovery on Ms. Magee through respondent. When no discovery responses were filed, defendants filed a motion to compel together with a motion to dismiss. The court granted respondent additional time to respond to the discovery, but he failed to do so. As a result, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss. Prior to a ruling on the motion to dismiss, respondent and defendants entered into a settlement in the amount of $3,000. Ms. Magee was not present for the settlement and contends she did not authorize respondent to enter into same. Although Ms. Magee refused to accept the settlement funds from respondent, defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement, which the trial court granted. The ODC alleges respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.2(a) (scope of the representation), 1.3, and 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS Respondent failed to answer or otherwise reply to both sets of formal charges. Accordingly, the factual allegations contained therein were deemed admitted and proven by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX,

Download 2005-B-1463 IN RE: CLAYTON PAUL SCHNYDER.pdf

Louisiana Law