ILNews

Disbarred attorney accused of forgery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rodney P. Sniadecki, a sole practitioner in South Bend who was disbarred by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2010, has been indicted on three counts of forgery.

A grand jury in South Bend indicted Sniadecki May 3 on the Class C felony charges. He turned himself in and was released on bond.

The indictment says that on Nov. 27, 2007, Sniadecki, with the intent to defraud, created an appearance form, minute entry and waiver of extradition on behalf of Michael DeMeester that bore a signature purporting to have been made by Michael Wandling.

On Dec. 5, 2007, Sniadecki allegedly made a guardianship information form and petition of appointment for a temporary guardian for a minor bearing a signature purported to have been made by Angela Russo.

Count III alleges that on April 21 and 30, 2008, Sniadecki made U.S. income tax return documents on behalf of St. Joseph Valley Mortgage Corp. or Caterina M. Sergio in such a manner that the instruments purported to have been made at another time.

Sniadecki was disbarred in 2010 for violating the terms of a previous suspension, entering into an improper business transaction with a client and engaging in dishonest conduct by falsifying loan documents when trying to get a loan to repay the client through mortgages on his law offices.

He was suspended in 2007 for having a sexual relationship with a client and initially lying to the commission about when it started; for hiring a suspended attorney to perform administrative, secretarial, and paralegal duties; and for representing a wife in a divorce action while still representing the wife and husband in a joint bankruptcy petition.

Sniadecki’s initial hearing on the forgery charges is May 7.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Too much tolerance?
    On October 17, 2007, this Court issued an order in a prior disciplinary case against Respondent under Cause Number 71S00-0512-DI-627, suspending him from the practice of law for six months with automatic reinstatement, effective November 26, 2007 (“Order of Suspension”). See Matter of Sniadecki, 875 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. 2007). SNIADECKI's "priors" still allowed for automatic reinstatement in 2007, upon which time he immediately began engaging in misconduct again, which was not ended until the system disbarred him three years later. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/04011001per.pdf
  • Justice
    It has taken five years for me to resolve and validate this man's actions done knowing and on purpose. He could have made his money legally if he brought cases to trial. Why study all those years to lose your license? I will never get back what all he took from me mentally and financially. Lying for all those years. Thank you for bringing closure and peace to this betrayal of trust ex-client.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT