Cal. Suspends Lawyer Who Wouldn’t Produce Computer in Fee Fight

The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct™ is a trusted resource that helps attorneys understand cases and decisions that directly impacts their work, practice ethically, and...

By Joan C. Rogers

The California Supreme Court suspended a lawyer who balked at producing her computer for a court-ordered inspection of her electronic time records supporting a multimillion-dollar fee request in a class action.

Lori J. Sklar received a one-year stayed suspension with two years of probation, beginning with a 30-day period of suspension ( In re Sklar , 2017 BL 95065, Cal., No. S238847, 3/22/17 ).

Sklar filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 20.

The disciplinary order is the latest chapter in a long-running fight over sanctions for Sklar’s conduct in seeking fees as plaintiffs’ counsel in a class action suit involving defective Toshiba laptop covers.

During litigation over her fee request, Sklar said she couldn’t produce her time records in “native form” with associated metadata because she scrubbed her computer daily to eliminate metadata.

Sanction Order, Then Disciplinary Case

The California Court of Appeal upheld an order sanctioning Sklar and sent a copy of its opinion to the California state bar.

After a four-day trial in Sklar’s disciplinary case, a hearing judge found that she misled the court in the class action about the amount of her fee request and disobeyed orders to produce her computer so an expert could examine backup files.

The California State Bar Court, Review Department, rejected Sklar’s challenges to the hearing judge’s findings. She violated California Business & Professions Code §6068(d) (misleading a judge) and §6103 (disobeying court orders), the court said in an unpublished opinion.

The California Supreme Court denied review and imposed the discipline recommended by the state bar court.

‘Wipe and Delete’

The state bar court said that when Sklar initially made a $24 million fee request in the class action, the judge allowed discovery about the amount of time she actually worked on the case, and ordered her to produce electronic time records in “native format.”

Sklar turned over hard copies of her time records and Microsoft Word files of the records, but not electronic, searchable copies in their “native form” with associated metadata. Sklar claimed those records no longer existed because she used a program called “Wipe and Delete” to scrub her computer daily and eliminate metadata.

Toshiba moved for sanctions, claiming Sklar had deleted or destroyed responsive records. The judge ordered the parties to select a neutral expert to search Sklar’s computer backup files and produce anything that wasn’t privileged.

Sklar fought the order and nearly a year later, the inspection still hadn’t occurred. The judge then ordered the inspection to take place on a particular date. Sklar challenged that order too, and the inspection never took place.

The judge ultimately imposed $165,000 in sanctions against Sklar for misuse of the discovery process. The court of appeal upheld the sanction, saying she had unquestionably flouted the court-ordered inspections.

Sklar, of Minneapolis, represented herself. She’s still authorized to practice law in Minnesota, according to her official listing there.

To contact the reporter on this story: Joan C. Rogers in Washington at jrogers@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story: S. Ethan Bowers at sbowers@bna.com

For More Information

Full text of California Supreme Court opinion is at http://src.bna.com/qDO.California state bar court's opinion can be viewed at http://www.statebarcourt.ca.gov/Portals/2/documents/opinions/Sklar.pdf.

Copyright © 2017 American Bar Association and The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Request ABA BNA Lawyers' Manual on Professional Conduct™