ILNews

In case of dishonest lawyers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys know they aren’t supposed to reach into a client’s cookie jar and take money that doesn’t belong to them or fail to provide the legal services they’ve vowed to perform.

But sometimes, lawyers behave badly, and clients can find themselves cheated. A legal malpractice action might be a remedy, but sometimes former clients are left without what they might consider a real remedy for what has happened to them.

That’s where the Indiana State Bar Association sees a place to step in and do what it can to try and help repair the legal profession’s bruised and battered image that stems from these kinds of dishonest circumstances. Specifically, the Clients’ Financial Assistance Fund is a voluntary attempt by the legal profession to help those who’ve been victimized by dishonest attorneys.

“We have some lawyers who give the profession a bad name, and I think it’s a good thing for the state bar to do – and lawyers to know – that this resource is available for some clients who’ve had negative experiences out there,” said Indianapolis attorney Seamus Boyce, vice chair of the fund program. “We don’t see ourselves as judges, but just attorneys who are trying to do a good service, like public relations for the legal profession.”

Nearing its 50th birthday after being formed by the House of Delegates in 1961, the fund receives about $2 from every state bar member’s annual dues and the money usually rolls over to the next cycle. Most states have a similar fund, though some are run by the judiciary or state rather than through the state bar association.

Those attorneys who’ve been a part of the program for years say this is an unprecedented time due to the amount of claims coming in regarding a single attorney.

In fact, association records show that the complaints against one attorney this year are on pace to exceed the amount filed for all attorneys during the past decade, but it’s still unknown what the total might be and whether some or all of that money will ultimately be given to those victims.
 

sniadecki-rod-mug Sniadecki

That individual is a now-disbarred St. Joseph County attorney, Rod Sniadecki, who nearly 100 clients have expressed interest in complaining about because of his conduct.

The Indiana Supreme Court struck his name from the attorney roll back in May, after finding that the solo practitioner admitted to the bar in 1992 had violated the terms of a previous suspension imposed for having a sexual relationship with a client and then lying about it, as well as hiring a suspended attorney to perform various legal duties. Sniadecki also took on conflicting roles as counsel for a divorcing wife while representing both her and the husband in a joint bankruptcy case.

In disbarring Sniadecki, the justices found he’d committed misconduct by not notifying all active clients of his October 2007 suspension. He also accepted new clients and represented them during his suspension. The misconduct ruling found that Sniadecki directed his legal secretary to forge several documents and gave false sworn statements to the Disciplinary Commission during its investigation of the disciplinary case, took money from clients without repaying it, and falsified loan documents and attempted to obstruct justice when trying to get a loan to repay a client through mortgages on his law office and new law office properties.

Following that disbarment, the St. Joseph Prosecutor’s Office turned over its criminal investigation to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana to consider possible forgery, perjury, and attempted obstruction of justice charges. No charges or indictments have been made public at this time, according to the federal court docket.

The Sniadecki situation has created a new phenomenon for the ISBA’s victim fund that it hasn’t faced before, according to Boyce and current chair, Gary Stage in Indianapolis.

In the past decade, records show the ISBA has paid out nearly $276,414 to dozens of applicants who’ve proved they were victimized by their attorneys. Stage says the fund administrators meet every other month and usually discuss about eight to 10 cases, and most of the claims range from $500 to $5,000. The ISBA doesn’t have a historic breakdown of how many attorneys have been the subject of claims each year, but the amount submitted against Sniadecki is nearly at the level submitted against all attorneys during the past decade.


stage-gary-mug Stage

More than 90 applications from different individuals have been requested, and so far 44 of those have been returned for a total of about $200,163, the ISBA reports. Stage says that the fund is more than able to handle the excess, with most recent figures from Oct. 31 showing a total $560,156 in the fund. Almost $20,000 has been collected so far since July 1 and about $31,000 has been paid on attorney claims, though none of that has been related to Sniadecki because applications are still being accepted and reviewed.

A hurdle the fund faces with Sniadecki, though, is that current rules limit the amount of money that can be paid out for one attorney to $50,000.

“It’s been interesting to me about the history of this program, but in studying that history and talking to those who’ve been around, no one can recall anything like this happening,” Boyce said.

Stage has been involved with the program for six years, served the past three as chair, and agreed that the large number of claims against Sniadecki is unprecedented and could force fund administrators to ask the ISBA’s governing board for additional revenue to give to applicants. While he and Boyce believe that the request is rare but has been made before, neither they nor other long-time members could pinpoint an example of that cap being increased.

The rules stipulate that not more than $15,000 can go to any one applicant and that $50,000 is the total that can be collected for any one attorney’s conduct, but if the board agrees to exceed that amount it cannot be more than an additional $10,000.

“They might increase it past that $50,000 mark, but I doubt it would get anywhere near $200,000 even if all those claims were found eligible,” Stage said, pointing out that he couldn’t speculate about ongoing or future investigations or what could be determined. “Theoretically, we’d ask for approval and allocate on a pro rata basis, maybe paying three-fourths of the claim amounts. But we don’t know, because we’ve never had to apply that type of thing before.”

Both lawyers said that they act as filters for the applications to determine if any fraud or misconduct happened, but sometimes that just doesn’t warrant recovery through this fund and is more suitable for a court action, they said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • in case of dishonest lawyers
    Because of the public embarrassment, there should be a class action suit against this man. He knew what he was doing. from 1994 til 2007, he lied about filing cases. I TRUSTED THIS MAN! I LOSE! NO ACCOUNTABILITY!

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT