IN RE: CLAUDE F. REYNAUD (2026)

No additional discipline imposed. See per curiam.

JDH

JLW

JBM

PDG

JMG

WHB

Supreme Court of Louisiana June 25, 2026

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

NO. 2026-B-0432

IN RE: CLAUDE F. REYNAUD

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING

PER CURIAM

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 21, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) has filed a petition seeking the imposition of reciprocal discipline against respondent, Claude F. Reynaud, III, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana, based upon discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Respondent was formerly employed in the Louisiana office of the Texas-based law firm of McClenny Moseley and Associates, PLLC (“MMA”). MMA represented hundreds of victims on property damage claims that arose after Hurricanes Laura, Delta, and Ida struck Louisiana. In August 2022, Richard William Huye, III, MMA's Louisiana managing partner and respondent's supervisor, requested that respondent provide him with access to his PACER account so that MMA could timely file complaints before these hurricane claims prescribed. Respondent agreed to Mr. Huye's request. Using this procedure, MMA mass-filed several hundred lawsuits within a short timeframe in various jurisdictions, including the Western District of Louisiana; however, the suits included many duplicate filings, cases filed against insurers who had no insurance policy in place with the plaintiffs, and cases filed on behalf of plaintiffs who had already settled their hurricane claims directly with the insurer. On March 3, 2023, United States District Judge James D. Cain, Jr. suspended respondent and other MMA attorneys from practicing law in the Western District of Louisiana for ninety days.

On March 31, 2026, the ODC filed a motion to initiate reciprocal discipline proceedings in Louisiana. A copy of Judge Cain's order was attached to the petition. On April 1, 2026, this court rendered an order giving respondent and the ODC thirty days to demonstrate why the imposition of identical discipline would be unwarranted. Respondent timely filed an opposition with this court.

We find the imposition of additional discipline against respondent is not warranted. Clearly, respondent recognizes that he erred in acquiescing to Mr. Huye's legal strategies and allowing his PACER credentials to be used to file faulty complaints. However, respondent was not primarily responsible for the deficiencies which the federal court identified in MMA's filings. Moreover, the ODC's three-year delay in initiating these reciprocal discipline proceedings caused significant prejudice to respondent. Accordingly, while we caution respondent to avoid similar professional lapses in the future, we decline to impose any additional discipline based on the unique facts presented in this matter.

DECREE

Considering the Petition to Initiate Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the record filed herein, it is ordered that no additional discipline be imposed upon respondent.

Cole, J., recused.