In Re: Schnyder – Establishing a Three-Year Suspension for Recidivist Trust Account Misconduct and Non-Cooperation

Introduction

In Re: Clayton Paul Schnyder, Jr. presents a disciplinary proceeding before the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The respondent, Clayton Paul Schnyder, Jr., is a lawyer admitted in 1996 whose license was rendered ineligible in September 2024 for nonpayment of bar dues. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) charged him with misusing his client trust account, failing to maintain accurate bar-registration information, and refusing to cooperate with investigatory demands. Against the backdrop of multiple prior admonitions and suspensions for similar misconduct, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether these new violations, deemed admitted for lack of response, warranted further sanction and, if so, what form and duration of discipline would satisfy the objectives of protecting the public, preserving the profession’s integrity, and deterring future wrongdoing.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously found that the factual allegations in the formal charges were admitted by Schnyder’s failure to answer or participate in the proceedings. It held that he violated:

Rule 1.1(c) – by failing to keep his registration addresses current;
Rules 1.15(a) & (b) – by writing trust-account checks to himself for personal purposes (renovations and entertainment) in presumptive commingling or conversion of client funds;
Rules 8.1(b) & (c) – by knowingly failing to respond to ODC’s requests for information and cooperating with its investigation; and
Rule 8.4(a) – as a derivative violation based on the above breaches of professional conduct.

Considering Schnyder’s extensive prior disciplinary record—spanning admonitions in 2000 and 2002, a one-year-and-one-day suspension in 2006, a consent suspension in 2019, and repeated non-cooperation—the Court imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law and assessed all costs and expenses of the disciplinary proceeding against him.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re: Urbina, 22-0394 (La. 5/10/22), 338 So. 3d 1165 – imposed a one-year-and-one-day suspension for mishandling a trust account and non-cooperation where the lawyer’s formal charges were deemed admitted.
In re: Martin, 17-1288 (La. 10/16/17), 226 So. 3d 1108 – imposed a two-year suspension under similar facts of trust-account misuse and refusal to engage with the ODC after the charges were deemed admitted.
In re: Boudreau, 03-1890 (La. 12/3/03), 860 So. 2d 1119 – imposed a six-month suspension for a lawyer’s repeated failure to cooperate, emphasizing that recidivist non-cooperation is particularly egregious.
In re: Fahrenholtz, 09-0748 (La. 10/2/09), 18 So. 3d 751 – imposed a one-year-and-one-day suspension for two separate non-cooperation incidents and failure to fulfill professional obligations.

These precedents established a spectrum of sanctions—from six months up to two years—depending on the gravity of trust-account breaches and the extent of non-cooperation, especially when the lawyer’s misconduct is deemed admitted.

Legal Reasoning

The Court first applied Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3), which treats the respondent’s failure to answer formal charges as admission of all factual allegations. It then identified the legal conclusions flowing from those facts: that Schnyder violated Rules 1.1(c), 1.15(a)/(b), 8.1(b)/(c), and 8.4(a). In assessing sanction, the Court referred to the ABA’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions to determine the appropriate baseline:

Standard 4.12 – suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly misuses client property and causes injury or potential injury; and
Standard 8.1(b) – disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer has been suspended for similar misconduct and continues to engage in it.

While the potential for actual financial harm to clients could not be quantified due to Schnyder’s non-participation, the Court underscored the serious risk posed by any misuse of trust funds. It also weighed the aggravating factors—particularly Schnyder’s “significant” and repetitive prior record and his “bad faith obstruction” of the proceeding—against only minimal mitigating circumstances (the remoteness of his earliest admonitions). Comparing the facts to Urbina, Martin, Boudreau, and Fahrenholtz, the Court concluded that a three-year suspension best serves the disciplinary objectives.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces several important points in Louisiana disciplinary jurisprudence:

Repeated non-cooperation with the disciplinary authority, especially after prior sanctions for similar conduct, justifies a multi-year suspension.
Misuse or commingling of trust account funds—even if limited to two checks—creates a presumption of conversion warranting serious discipline where not rebutted.
The deemed-admission mechanism under Rule XIX, § 11(E)(3) shifts the burden to the attorney to show mitigating circumstances or refute the presumption of rule violations.

Future disciplinary matters will likely cite Schnyder as the leading example for fashioning sanctions against recidivist attorneys who mishandle client funds and evade investigatory processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deemed Admission of Facts: When an attorney does not answer formal disciplinary charges, all factual claims are treated as admitted without further proof.
Client Trust Account (IOLTA): A separate bank account where lawyers hold client funds; it may not be used for personal expenses or commingled with attorney funds, except to pay minimal bank fees.
Commingling vs. Conversion: Commingling occurs when personal and client funds mix in a trust account; conversion occurs when a lawyer improperly uses client funds for personal benefit.
ABA Standards: National guidelines that help courts choose appropriate sanctions based on the lawyer’s intent, prior record, and harm caused.

Conclusion

In Re: Clayton Paul Schnyder, Jr. cements a rigorous standard for disciplining attorneys with a pattern of trust-account misconduct and persistent non-cooperation. By imposing a three-year suspension—longer than prior cases with fewer aggravating factors—the Supreme Court of Louisiana underscores the profession’s intolerance for repeat offenses and obstruction of its disciplinary processes. This ruling not only protects clients and preserves public trust but also reinforces deterrence among practitioners who might otherwise view investigatory silence or minor account infractions as risk-free.