William J. Gonyea, Jr. v. Orian Scott, 541 S.W.3d 238

In 2010 Scott contracted with attorney William Gonyea to investigate and file a habeas corpus application and paid $25,000; a second $25,000 payment was accidentally made by Scott’s sister.
Gonyea agreed to apply $10,000 of the duplicate payment to separate parole work and to return the remaining $15,000, but he deposited the duplicate $25,000 into his operating account and did not return funds.
Over the next three years Gonyea never filed the habeas application, never conducted core investigatory steps (witness interviews, draft petitions, or court appearances), and altered third‑party research memos placed in Scott’s file.
Scott discharged Gonyea, sued for breach of contract (seeking $25,000) and theft under the Texas Theft Liability Act (seeking $15,000), and the trial court found for Scott on both claims and awarded fees.
On appeal the court affirmed the breach‑of‑contract award (holding Peeler did not bar restitution when the attorney performed no contractual services) and reversed the theft award (holding the theft claim accrued in 2010 and Scott failed to prove the discovery rule).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Peeler doctrine bars Scott’s breach‑of‑contract recovery for fees paid for post‑conviction services that were not performed	Scott: claim is restitution for nonperformance, not a malpractice claim; Peeler’s policies don’t bar recovering fees for work never done	Gonyea: breach claim is effectively a malpractice claim and Peeler precludes recovery because plaintiff was convicted	Held: Peeler does not bar restitution where attorney performed no contractual services and evidence supports nonperformance; breach‑of‑contract judgment affirmed
Whether Scott’s theft claim is time‑barred or saved by the discovery rule (two‑year limitations)	Scott: he could not have known funds were placed in operating account rather than trust account, so discovery rule delays accrual	Gonyea: theft accrued when he deposited funds into his operating account in Aug. 2010; limitations expired	Held: theft claim accrued Aug. 30, 2010; Scott failed to prove the discovery rule or when he knew; theft judgment reversed and rendered for Gonyea

Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. 1995) (establishes rule barring convicted persons from recovering malpractice damages that would attribute causation to attorney rather than the client’s criminal conduct)
Douglas v. Delp, 987 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. 1999) (reiterates Peeler’s limitation that convicted plaintiffs may recover only if exonerated)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (Sixth Amendment standard describing counsel’s role and importance to adversarial system)