In re Schneider (, 117361

Lawrence E. Schneider, a solo bankruptcy practitioner admitted in 1977, was the subject of a disciplinary proceeding after multiple chapter 7 filings in which he failed to timely assert earned income tax credit (EITC) exemptions on Schedule C.
In several matters (A.J. & M.J.; J.R. & I.R.; C.C.; D.T.) the trustee sought and obtained allocations or orders for tax refunds; Schneider frequently failed to timely respond to trustee motions and discovery.
His failures led to court orders, contempt exposure, a revoked discharge and judgments in at least one case; Schneider later paid trustees personally to satisfy the amounts in several matters and entered into payment plans.
The hearing panel found clear and convincing evidence Schneider violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence) and KRPC 1.4(b) (communication) as to A.J./M.J. and C.C.; it found insufficient proof for violations as to J.R./I.R. and D.T.
Aggravating factors: pattern of misconduct and long experience. Mitigating factors: no prior discipline, restitution paid, cooperation with the investigation, remorse, and improved practice thereafter.
The hearing panel recommended published censure; the Disciplinary Administrator ultimately agreed and the Kansas Supreme Court adopted the recommendation and ordered published censure, plus assessment of costs.

Issue	Disciplinary Administrator's Argument	Schneider's Argument	Held
Whether Schneider violated KRPC 1.3 (diligence) by failing to timely respond to motions and discovery	Repeated failures to respond deprived clients of meaningful defense and caused potential or actual injury; shows negligent pattern	Errors were negligent, not intentional; attributable to practice habits and later corrected	Court adopted panel: violated KRPC 1.3 (clear and convincing evidence)
Whether Schneider violated KRPC 1.4(b) (communication) by failing to explain consequences of revoked discharge to client C.C.	Failed to explain ramifications sufficiently to allow informed client decision-making	Contends lack of willful misconduct and claims client understanding may be incomplete but disputed	Court adopted panel: violated KRPC 1.4(b) as to C.C.
Appropriate discipline for the misconduct	Recommended suspension originally (3 months); later, given remediation and judicial observation, recommended published censure	Argued suspension was excessive given negligence, restitution, cooperation, and remediation	Court imposed published censure (adopting panel and Disciplinary Administrator recommendation)
Whether misconduct in other client matters (J.R./I.R., D.T.) warranted findings	Alleged pattern across multiple matters	Schneider disputed severity and noted improvements and restitution	Panel/court found insufficient clear and convincing evidence for violations in those specific matters

In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940 (discussing standard of proof and appellate review in attorney discipline)
In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498 (defining clear and convincing evidence standard in disciplinary context)
In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708 (cited for the clear and convincing evidence formulation)