In re Schiro

Summary

The Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed disciplinary charges against attorney Gasper J. Schiro arising from his handling of a client's personal injury matter against the City of New Orleans. The court found violations involving competence, diligence, communication, and expediting litigation, and imposed a one-year suspension with six months deferred and one year of unsupervised probation.

Holdings

1. Schiro acted as Witt's attorney because his conduct in handling the matter caused Witt reasonably to believe that Schiro represented him, even though Schiro never formally enrolled as counsel of record.
2. Schiro violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 3.2 by failing to provide competent representation, failing to communicate adequately with Witt, failing to act with diligence, and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite the litigation.
3. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Schiro's position as a parish official created a conflict of interest in representing Witt against the City of New Orleans.
4. The Office of Disciplinary Counsel failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Schiro improperly or dishonestly attempted to settle malpractice liability in violation of Rules 1.8(h) and 8.4(c).
5. A one-year suspension from the practice of law was appropriate, with six months deferred and followed by one year of unsupervised probation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Schiro acted as Witt's attorney despite not being counsel of record.
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence established that Schiro violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to provide competent and diligent representation, failing to communicate, and failing to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation.
3. Whether clear and convincing evidence established a conflict of interest arising from Schiro's position as an elected parish official.
4. Whether Schiro's discussion of paying Witt $2,000 constituted an improper or dishonest settlement of a malpractice claim under Rules 1.8(h) and 8.4(c).
5. What sanction was appropriate in light of the misconduct and aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Disposition

other