929 N.W.2d 384
Minn.2019Background
- Lori J. Sklar, admitted in Minnesota and California, was disciplined by the California Supreme Court (suspension of 1 year, stayed except for first 30 days; 2 years probation) for (1) making a false statement to a court about the amount of a fee request and (2) willfully disobeying two court orders relating to a court-ordered computer inspection in a class-action fee dispute.
- The California State Bar held a four-day disciplinary hearing; Sklar participated, was represented, presented exhibits and witnesses, and appealed to the review department and then the California Supreme Court.
- The Minnesota Director petitioned under Rule 12(d), RLPR, to impose identical reciprocal discipline in Minnesota (requested 30-day suspension).
- Under Rule 12(d), Minnesota may impose identical discipline unless: (a) the other jurisdiction’s proceedings were unfair, or (b) identical discipline would be unjust or substantially different from discipline warranted in Minnesota. A final adjudication elsewhere conclusively establishes misconduct unless Minnesota determines otherwise.
- The Minnesota Supreme Court found California’s proceedings fundamentally fair, rejected Sklar’s procedural and substantive challenges (including alleged discovery of new evidence, undue delay, and novelty of e-discovery), and concluded a 30-day suspension is within Minnesota’s sentencing range for comparable misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Sklar (Plaintiff) Argument | Director (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were California disciplinary proceedings fundamentally fair? | Proceedings were unfair due to late-introduced exhibits and reliance on civil appellate findings. | Sklar received notice, full trial participation, counsel, exhibits, witnesses, and appeals; proceedings were fair. | Proceedings were fundamentally fair; Sklar had full notice and opportunity to be heard. |
| Should Minnesota impose identical reciprocal discipline or is identical discipline "substantially different" from Minnesota practice? | Minnesota would typically impose only a private admonition or public reprimand for similar misconduct. | Minnesota precedent includes many suspensions (30–90 days) for false statements and disobedience; 30 days is within the range. | Reciprocal 30-day suspension is not substantially different from discipline warranted in Minnesota. |
| Is reciprocal discipline unjust due to delay or procedural timing? | Unjust because of excessive delay in California process and delay in Director’s petition filing. | Much delay stemmed from Sklar’s appeals; no specific prejudice shown. | Delay does not render reciprocal discipline unjust; no actual prejudice shown. |
| Do facts (novelty of e-discovery) justify misconduct or mitigation making discipline unjust? | E-discovery was novel (2007–2010); her resistance sought to protect privileged/confidential data. | Novelty does not excuse false statements or disobeying court orders; misconduct remains culpable. | Novelty of e-discovery does not justify misrepresentation or disobedience; not a basis to avoid reciprocal discipline. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Wolff, 810 N.W.2d 312 (Minn. 2012) (standard for assessing fairness of out-of-state disciplinary proceedings)
- In re Overboe, 867 N.W.2d 482 (Minn. 2015) (notice and opportunity to respond determine fundamental fairness)
- In re Heinemann, 606 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. 2000) (purpose of reciprocal discipline to prevent forum-shopping by disciplined attorneys)
- In re Hawkins, 834 N.W.2d 663 (Minn. 2013) (false statements to a tribunal warrant severe discipline)
- In re Ask, 899 N.W.2d 182 (Minn. 2017) (30-day suspension for multiple false statements)