In the Matter of Robert Michael Sklar

Facts Leading to Discipline

Robert Michael Sklar was admitted to the California State Bar in 1981 and practiced primarily in the area of personal injury law. Over a prolonged period, Sklar engaged in repeated misconduct involving client trust accounts, conflicts of interest, improper financial dealings with clients, and neglect of client matters.

In several automobile accident cases, Sklar simultaneously represented both drivers and passengers without disclosing potential conflicts of interest or obtaining their informed written consent. Settlement proceeds and medical-payment funds that were required to be safeguarded for clients and medical providers were deposited into trust but not maintained. Trust account balances routinely fell below the amounts required to be held, resulting in misappropriation of client and third-party funds.

Sklar also provided a $10,000 unsecured loan to a personal-injury client for funeral and living expenses without complying with ethical rules governing financial transactions with clients. In additional matters, Sklar failed for extended periods to return client files after termination of representation and failed to prosecute cases with reasonable diligence.

The misconduct occurred while Sklar was already subject to prior discipline for similar violations. He failed to comply with probationary requirements, including trust-account certifications and quarterly reporting obligations. Evidence also established that Sklar suffered from ongoing cocaine dependency during the relevant period.

Charges

• Misappropriation of client and third-party trust funds
• Failure to properly maintain and safeguard client trust accounts
• Conflict of interest arising from multiple representation without disclosure or consent
• Improper financial transaction and loan to a client
• Failure to return client files promptly
• Failure to perform legal services competently and diligently
• Failure to comply with disciplinary probation requirements
• Acts involving dishonesty and moral turpitude

Defenses Raised

Sklar argued that trust account shortages were the result of negligence and poor office management rather than intentional wrongdoing. He asserted that no actual conflicts existed in the joint representations because liability was clear and uncontested.

He further contended that the $10,000 payment to a client constituted a permissible advance rather than an improper loan, and that delays in returning client files did not cause material harm. In mitigation, Sklar cited partial restitution, efforts at substance-abuse treatment, and reduction of his practice.

Court’s Ruling

The Review Department rejected Sklar’s characterization of the misconduct as merely negligent. It found that repeated trust account shortages over an extended period, combined with delayed restitution and implausible explanations, supported a finding of dishonest misappropriation.

The court also held that California law clearly required disclosure and written consent for potential conflicts in driver-passenger representations, regardless of perceived alignment of interests. Sklar’s financial transaction with a client violated ethical rules even absent proof of actual harm.

Given the extensive pattern of misconduct, prior discipline for similar violations, noncompliance with probation, substance abuse issues, and the magnitude of the trust account violations, the Review Department concluded that disbarment was necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the legal profession.

Sanctions

Tags