ILNews

Supreme Court disbars attorney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Disciplinary Actions


The Indiana Supreme Court disbarred a northern Indiana attorney April 1 for violating the terms of a previous suspension, entering into an improper business transaction with a client, and engaging in dishonest conduct.

The justices unanimously disbarred Rodney P. Sniadecki, a sole practitioner in Mishawaka and South Bend, adopting the hearing officer's findings and proposed discipline.

Sniadecki has been disbarred based on the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's three-count verified complaint. Count I says he failed to obey suspension obligations by not notifying all his active clients of his October 2007 suspension, making a false compliance affidavit with the Indiana Supreme Court in regards to providing written notice, and he maintained a presence in his law office while he was suspended. The evidence shows Sniadecki even accepted new clients and represented them during his suspension.

Sniadecki directed his legal secretary to forge several documents and gave false sworn statements to the Disciplinary Commission during its investigation of the instant case.

Under Count II, Sniadecki conducted an improper business transaction with a client. He misrepresented to his client that his law office property was for sale, so they entered into an oral agreement for her to purchase the property. She gave him $180,000 in cash, but then changed her mind after Sniadecki said her request to fully inspect the property would "ruin everything." Sniadecki provided his client with a promissory note to repay the money, which he used to purchase another property for his law office, but he failed to set up a payment schedule. Sniadecki continued to represent her for several months after the transaction until she fired him.

The third count says Sniadecki falsified loan documents and committed attempted obstruction of justice when trying to get a loan to repay the client through mortgages on his current law office and new law office properties. Because his wife was the owner of the new property, Sniadecki had his legal secretary forge wage and tax documents to help him have the mortgage approved.

After the commission initiated an investigation of a grievance against Sniadecki pertaining to the falsified loan documents, he asked the loan originator working on the mortgage to take responsibility for the forged documents. Sniadecki offered him a position in his law office, but the loan originator refused.

The justices agreed with the hearing officer that the witnesses were more credible than Sniadecki in the investigation. Sniadecki is disbarred for violating Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26); and Indiana Professional Rules of Conduct 1.8(a), 3.3(a), 3.4(c), 8.4(b), and 8.4(c). His disbarment is effective May 12.

Sniadecki was admitted to the bar in 1992. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT