In the Matter of Robert Steven Kaplan

Facts Leading to Discipline

Robert Steven Kaplan was a solo practitioner admitted in 1979 whose practice focused primarily on plaintiffs’ personal injury litigation. Over a multi-year period, Kaplan’s law office suffered from serious breakdowns in administrative supervision, particularly with respect to staff oversight, client communications, and file handling. An amended ten-count Notice to Show Cause alleged misconduct arising from Kaplan’s representation of ten different clients.

The misconduct largely stemmed from Kaplan’s failure to adequately supervise his office manager and clerical staff. As a result, client communications were not relayed to him, substitution-of-attorney forms were not timely executed, client files were not promptly released to successor counsel, and settlement drafts were delayed in being endorsed and returned. In one matter, Kaplan also failed to pay court-ordered sanctions.

Kaplan testified that his longtime office manager secretly screened calls, hid correspondence, and failed to provide him with client communications. While the hearing judge rejected this explanation as not credible, the Review Department later found the testimony plausible and corroborated by an eyewitness. Although no acts of moral turpitude were proven, the cumulative effect of Kaplan’s negligent law office management caused delay, frustration, and in one instance the loss of a client’s cause of action.

Charges

• Failure to communicate with clients (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(m))
• Failure to promptly release client files and execute substitutions of attorney (former Rule 2-111(A)(2); Rule 3-700)
• Failure to perform legal services competently (former Rule 6-101(A)(2))
• Improper delay in endorsing and returning settlement drafts (Rule 4-100(B)(4))
• Failure to obey court orders by not paying sanctions (Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103)

All charges alleging moral turpitude under section 6106 were rejected.

Defenses Raised

Kaplan argued that the misconduct resulted from the hidden actions of his office manager rather than his own willful conduct. He contended that he lacked actual knowledge of many client demands and requests, that he relied in good faith on a trusted employee, and that any delays were negligent at most.

He also disputed findings related to delayed endorsement of settlement checks, arguing that he never had possession of client funds and that logistical issues created by successor counsel and clients caused the delays. As to the unpaid sanctions, Kaplan asserted that he had never received notice of the court order.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department sustained most of the hearing judge’s culpability findings, concluding that Kaplan was responsible for reasonable supervision of his staff and could not avoid discipline by claiming ignorance of office failures. Repeated client demands received by his office were sufficient to establish violations of the duty to communicate and promptly release client files.

However, the Review Department declined to adopt the hearing judge’s finding that Kaplan lacked candor. The court emphasized that Kaplan’s explanation regarding his office manager’s misconduct, while unusual, was corroborated and not implausible. Without that aggravating factor, the court determined that the originally recommended one-year actual suspension was excessive.

After reviewing comparable discipline cases and the applicable Standards for Attorney Sanctions, the Review Department imposed discipline consistent with negligent law office management rather than intentional misconduct.

Sanctions

Tags