Robert Hume Snedaker III

Here I recount how Snedaker sabotaged my case in the trial court. (A different attorney represented me in the Appellate court.) For lack of space I’ll focus on only a few points: 1.I consulted with Snedaker before I filed for divorce. In this consultation, which he permitted me to record, he advis...ed me to start recording conversations with my ex-wife after he heard what I had to say. He even said it would be ok to make video recordings; but i restricted myself to making audio recordings whenever she and I would discuss our marriage. This was a purely defensive tactic: for my protection. The fact that he was the one who had advised me to make these recordings (and I have his advise to me to do this on tape) was not mentioned by Snedaker during the trial. The trial court and also the Appelate court, while giving their judgement against me, made note of the fact that I had made recordings of conversations with my ex-wife, indicating that they held this against me. (I did not refer to the recordings in my testimony thinking I would offer an explanation if asked. In her testimony, which she gave after me, my ex-wife said that making the recordings was unethical and immoral on my part even if it was not illegal.) 2. At no point before the trial day did Snedaker inform me that I would personally have to give testimony at the trial. On the day of the trial, after some back and forth negotiations with the opposing attorney and the judge, Snedaker suddenly came to where I was sitting and said ‘The judge is saying she wants to have a trial now.’ I was completely unprepared to give any testimony; on the spur of the moment I said whatever came to my mind during my testimony. (Snedaker never prepared me for what I should say in my testimony other than a few words while we were walking from the conference room to the court room.) 3. Snedaker had filed a ‘Motion to Compel’ on the morning of the trial. This was for the purpose of compelling my ex-wife to share information about her medical history. She had not shared this information despite my asking for it in Discovery and despite my sharing similar information with her on being asked by her in Discovery. Additionally, Fraudulent contract (the fact that she had not disclosed her mental illness to me prior to marriage) was one of the grounds for my seeking divorce. Despite his filing the ‘Motion to Compel’ on the morning of the trial, Snedaker never argued his motion before the judge and it was dismissed after the trial. (The Appellate court refused to go into the Motion to Compel since they said it had not been argued before the trial court.) 4. Snedaker made no attempt to argue my case. Besides some introductory comments before my testimony, Snedaker never intervened during my testimony, in which I kept getting interrupted by the judge who at one point did not allow me to complete what I was saying. I was subjected to cross-examination by my ex’s attorney, while Snedaker said ‘No questions’ when it was his turn to cross-examine my ex. When my ex was testifying, I whispered to Snedaker that I needed to testify again to respond to what she was saying, but he ignored my request. He made no closing arguments. 5. A crucial aspect of Snedaker’s sabotage was the fact that my ex-wife’s testimony in court was contradicting in important aspects what she had said to me on tape. Snedaker had the tapes, and he had the transcripts of the tapes, which I had prepared and given to him, and yet he said nothing about the contradiction. (Did he even bother reading the transcripts?) 6. The fact that, despite Snedaker’s sabotage, the Appellate court, while dismissing my appeal, refused to grant my ex-wife attorney fees from me (something she was demanding) means that I had an arguable case. Winning and losing is a part of the game in any litigation. Capitulation, not fighting for your client, and charging an exorbitant amount for making a mess of your client’s case, is inexcusable, however.