In Our Opinion:
With 18 months of non-stop errors, staggering ineptitude, and outright corruption, Schnee Legal Services has been shamelessly chasing profits while trying to prop up the Gardella Vollmer and Bell unelected supermajority. But he won’t escape the imminent storm of complaints headed his way from the PA state board and the Supreme Court. This will be the nail in the coffin for Schnee Legal Services. The township will be forced to ditch him ahead of the November elections and bring on board a legitimate law firm with genuine, competent professionals.
Schnee Legal Services: A stubborn amateur playing Solicitor and acting like a know-it-all child.
Schnee is nothing more than a desperate, inexperienced lawyer clinging to Exeter Township’s business as a lifeline for his otherwise floundering, taxpayer-funded venture. His glaring incompetence shines as he shamelessly prioritizes profit over professionalism, aligning himself with the inept supermajority trio – Gardella, Vollmer, and Bell, who seem clueless about their roles.
Instead of maintaining a neutral, professional stance, Schnee’s dived deep into township politics and management, all to keep his pockets lined.
Let’s cut the nonsense: a modest township of 25,000 can’t possibly generate legal matters demanding more than 10 hours weekly, yet Schnee outrageously slaps them with bills for 60+ hours. What a blatant scam. Pouring money into endless emails with the former Township Manager, Betsy McBride, just screams foul play. And the incessant need to meddle, even down to bossing township employees around for every tiny decision? It’s evident. Schnee isn’t here for the community; he’s shamelessly cashing in at the expense of the taxpayers.
Take a look at these well-documented examples we’re spreading to our connections nationwide:
- Twice in just 12 months, he’s backed—and likely penned at the taxpayer’s expense—utterly baseless, malicious, and downright deceitful censures, all to line his pockets.
- On the taxpayer’s dime, he’s gifted political campaigns with ‘in-kind’ contributions, disguising them as legal advice
- He doesn’t shy away from going after and intimidating constituents.
- Alongside his wife, he’s orchestrated vile online attacks against political adversaries.
- Schnee has completely lost his marbles online, burning hours on social media and audaciously charging the taxpayer. Let’s not forget, Schnee’s just a private contractor, NOT a politician
- Schnee Legal Services can’t even draft a proper contract.
- He’s implicated in the KMS debacle, where taxpayers are shelling out $300K+ for the grossly incompetent and financially reckless township manager, McBride, who’s responsible for a whopping $2.5 million shortfall.
- Then there’s the RHM scam, where thanks to a contract Schnee penned, taxpayers are stuck with a $500K deficit, as RHM pockets a staggering 83 cents on every dollar made.
- Tucker-Hull gave him the boot for shameless over-biling
- He colluded with the unelected supermajority of Gardella, Bell, and Vollmer to get taxpayers to bankroll his new venture, guaranteeing himself a minimum of $15K monthly from Exeter’s residents to a total cost of $300K+ over two years
- For the past 18 months, Schnee Legal Services has been craftily doctoring public records by spinning Board of Supervisor meeting notes into personal opinion pieces. The notes starkly contrast with what’s shown in the actual videos and transcripts on YouTube.
In Conclusion.
Schnee has blatantly breached numerous ethical codes outlined in Article 8.4 of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and his termination is inevitable. Specifically, he’s trampled over sections (c), (d), (e), and (g) repeatedly.
Exeter residents, it’s high time to kick Schnee out. And rest assured, considering he can barely navigate the simplest bar exam in the entire country—Pennsylvania’s—he’s unlikely to pose a legal threat anywhere else.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
(g ) in the practice of law, by words or conduct, knowingly manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination, as those terms are defined in applicable federal, state or local statutes or ordinances, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, harassment or discrimination based upon race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, or socioeconomic status.
For Reference