THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIS SCHNEIDERMAN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Bar disciplined attorney Louis Schneiderman for neglecting three clients' legal matters, failing to communicate with them, misappropriating retainer fees, and refusing to return files. The Florida Supreme Court suspended Schneiderman from practice for three years with mandatory proof of rehabilitation before reinstatement, rejecting both disbarment and the Bar's recommendation of a lesser six-month suspension.
The court found Schneiderman guilty of violating Rule 11.02 and Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3), suspended him from practice for three years (rather than disbarring or imposing a shorter suspension), and required him to prove rehabilitation before reinstatement.
[1] An attorney's failure to take action on client matters, misrepresentation of activities, failure to communicate, refusal to return files, and failure to inform clients of…
[2] An attorney's failure to appear at a disciplinary hearing after due notice, and failure to file any response or defense, demonstrates a disregard for disciplinary proceed…
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“failed to take any action in regard to his clients' cases, misrepresented his activities in their behalf, failed to keep them informed on the status of their cases, refused to answer telephone calls and letters requesting information, refused to return the clients' files”
Establishes the scope and severity of Schneiderman's neglect and misconduct toward his clients
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchneiderman failed to take action on three separate clients' cases for up to two years, misrepresented his activities on their behalf, refused to com…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Disciplinary Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The complaint filed by The Florida Bar in this case against the respondent, Louis Schneiderman, included three counts arising out of separate grievance committee proceedings charging the respondent with neglecting legal matters entrusted to him. In each of the three instances the respondent, over a period of up to two years, failed to take any action in regard to his clients’ cases, misrepresented his activities in their behalf, failed to keep them informed on the status of their cases, refused to answer telephone calls and letters requesting information, refused to return the clients’ files so that they could proceed with another attorney, and failed to inform them of his whereabouts. In two of the cases, respondent was paid retainer fees which were never returned.
A final hearing was held on the complaint at which respondent, after due notice, failed to appear. He has failed to file any response or pleading or defense of any kind either with the grievance committee or with The Florida Bar. He has also not petitioned this Court for review of the hearing examiner’s findings and recommendations. It appears, from the record before this Court, that the respondent has in fact closed his Florida office and has, for a period of one and one-half years or more, resided in the State of New York.
The examiner recommended that the respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint for violating Rule 11.02 of Article 11, Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A., and Disciplinary Rule 6-101(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 32 F.S.A. The Florida Bar has joined in this recommendation, and this Court, after a careful review of the record, hereby adopts the findings and recommendation of the examiner. The examiner also recommended that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Florida. The Florida Bar, however, has petitioned this Court to discipline the respondent with only a six months’ suspension with the requirement that he prove his rehabilitation prior to any subsequent reinstatement. We do not feel that the charges justify a disbarment, but we are not inclined to treat this case as lightly as The Florida Bar recommends.
The respondent has exhibited as little regard for these disciplinary proceedings as he has for his clients’ interests. Particularly since the respondent does not now appear to be practicing law in Florida, we feel that a six months’ suspension will have little effect in impressing upon him his professional responsibilities. We feel that a longer suspension is necessary after which, if the respondent again desires to practice law in Florida, an appropriate showing of rehabilitation must be made.
Therefore, it is the judgment of this Court that the respondent be found guilty as charged in the complaint, that he be suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of three years with the requirement that he prove his rehabilitation before reinstatement, and that the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $253.50 be assessed against the respondent.
It is so ordered.
CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Florida BAR v. Cimbler, 840 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 2002)…on, which the referee found to be significant in the present case. See Florida Bar v. Elster, 770 So. 2d 1184 (Fla.2000); Florida Bar v. King, 664 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1995); Florida Bar v. Provost, 323 So. 2d 578 (Fla.1975); Florida Bar v. Schneiderman, 285 So. 2d 392 (Fla.1973). CONCLUSION Considering all of the circumstances in this case, we conclude that a one-year suspension followed by a term of three years’ probation is appropriate.5 We approve all other aspects of the referee’s recommended discipline but…