|
Daniel F. Snyder of Park Falls is a
Wisconsin-licensed attorney, admitted to
practice on January 16, 1974.
Snyder represented the respondent in a
divorce action filed in circuit court in
2002. The divorce was granted on July 30,
2003. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Judgment of Divorce were filed on
October 6, 2003.
Under the terms of the divorce, Snyder’s
client was to receive one-half of the July
30, 2003 value of the adverse party’s
separate pensions at two corporate
employers, by Qualified Domestic Relations
Order (QDRO). Snyder was responsible for
taking steps to give effect to the QDROs.
Snyder failed to do so in a timely manner.
Beginning in December 2004 and continuing
through February 2007, Snyder’s client wrote
to Snyder at least ten times. In each
instance, Snyder’s client made specific
inquiries as to the status of the QDROs and
implored Snyder to act in the matter if he
had not already done so.
In April 2007, Snyder sent a letter and
proposed QDRO to the circuit court, copying
his client and a company that was the
successor to the adverse party’s most recent
employer. That company, however, had no
connection to either of the two corporations
whose pension plans were covered in the 2003
divorce. This fact was brought to Snyder’s
attention in April 2007, but he took no
remedial measures at that time. In May
2007, the company incorrectly included in
the circulation of the proposed QDRO wrote
to Snyder, rejected the proposed QDRO,
informed Snyder that the adverse party had
exercised a lump sum option five years
earlier, and explained to Snyder that no
further benefits were due from that company.
Snyder took no steps at that time to send
proposed QDROs to the two proper corporate
entities whose pensions were covered in the
2003 divorce.
From 2007 to 2014, Snyder’s client did not
make further inquiry or otherwise pursue the
matter of the incomplete and unfiled QDROs
because she understood that the adverse
party was not receiving benefits under
either of the two pensions at issue and
because she had come to believe that Snyder
was unwilling to act in the matter. In July
2014, however, the adverse party informed
Snyder’s client that he was receiving
monthly pension benefits directly from one
of the corporate entities and from an entity
that had taken over the pension liability of
the second corporate employer covered in the
2003 divorce. The monthly pension payments
had commenced in February 2014.
In April 2015, Snyder contacted a commercial
preparer of QDROs to seek its assistance in
drafting QDROs for the two pensions. It was
not until December 2015, the same month that
his client provided Snyder her calculations
as to how much money she was losing without
QDROs in place, that Snyder provided the
QDRO preparer its required up-front fee for
drafting services. At the same time, Snyder
provided the QDRO preparer with the names
and addresses of the respective plan
administrators, the names and identifying
numbers of the respective plans, the
respective monthly benefit amounts, and some
instructions regarding QDRO content.
|
|
By sending a proposed QDRO to an entity with
no connection to the pension division terms in
his client’s divorce, Snyder violated SCR
20:1.1, which states, “A lawyer shall provide
competent representation to a client.
Competent representation requires the legal
knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation
reasonably necessary for the representation.”
|
|
In a divorce granted in 2003, in which he was
responsible for giving effect to pension
division via QDRO preparation, by failing to
act with respect to the two pensions at issue
until 2015, at which time he sought the
assistance of a third-party QDRO preparer,
Snyder violated SCR 20:1.3, which states, “A
lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and
promptness in representing a client.”
|
|
By failing to respond to repeated and specific
inquiries from his client concerning the
pension QDROs, and by otherwise failing to
keep his client informed regarding the status
of the QDROs, Snyder violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3)
and (4), which state, “A lawyer shall…(3) keep
the client reasonably informed about the
status of the matter; (4) promptly comply with
reasonable requests by the client for
information.”
|
|
Snyder received a public reprimand in 1999 and
a private reprimand in 2001.
In accordance with SCR 22.09(3), Attorney
Daniel F. Snyder is hereby publicly
reprimanded.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2016.
|