Grievance Against Attorney Robert A. Skipworth (Texas Bar Card No. 18473000)
Submitted to:
Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel
State Bar of Texas
P.O. Box 12487
Austin, TX 78711-2487
Submitted by Complainant:
Daniel Loya
317 Avenida Mirador
Santa Teresa, NM 88008
915-346-5739
danielloya3107@gmail.com
Date: December 5, 2025
Attorney Subject to Grievance: Robert A. Skipworth
Robert A. Skipworth, Attorney at Law P.C.
310 N Mesa St Ste 600
El Paso, TX 79901-1342
Bar Card Number: 18473000 TX
License Date: 09/18/1970
Executive Summary
This grievance concerns the conduct of Robert A. Skipworth, a Texas-licensed attorney who performed legal and collection activities for the El Mirador Homeowners Association (EMHOA) in Santa Teresa, New Mexico from his Texas law office. Under Texas Rule 8.05, his out-of-state conduct remains subject to Texas disciplinary authority because it was undertaken in his capacity as a Texas attorney.
The attached exhibits demonstrate that Mr. Skipworth pursued foreclosure litigation without client authorization, relied on unsupported and inconsistent accounting entries that contradicted EMHOA's own records, provided irreconcilably inconsistent statements to his client, and improperly treated the management company (DANA Properties) as the directing authority instead of EMHOA's Board.
I. Key Concepts
- Client Identity (Rule 1.13): The HOA—not its management company—is the organizational client.
- Conflicts (Rule 1.06): A conflict exists when the attorney acts under the direction of a non-client with interests adverse to the actual client.
- Authority (Rule 1.02): A lawyer may not initiate litigation without the client's informed authorization.
- Candor (Rules 4.01 & 8.04): Making irreconcilably inconsistent or misleading statements violates professional duties.
II. Factual Background and Violations
1. Unauthorized Foreclosures Filed Against Board Instructions
EMHOA adopted a clear policy—confirmed by DANA's own counsel—that no foreclosure actions may be initiated unless a debt exceeds $7,500 (Exhibits 1 & 5). On September 4 and 5, 2024, Mr. Skipworth asked DANA, not the Board, "When can I sue this guy?" (Exhibits 4 & 6). EMHOA never authorized litigation against either homeowner. Nonetheless, on November 21, 2024 he filed two foreclosure suits (Exhibits 2 & 3).
Trevino does not appear on any delinquency listings (Exhibit 11). Loya's EMHOA ledger reflects no such debt (Exhibit 8).
Initiating litigation under these circumstances directly violates Rules 1.02 and 1.03.
2. Reliance on Unreliable Accounting Contrary to Governing Documents
EMHOA's official ledger (Exhibit 8) shows:
- Zero balances for 2013-2021;
- Four legitimate 2022 assessments;
- A single Q1 2023 assessment;
- And multiple unexplained entries never approved by the Board, including a $1,451 charge and a $2,441 "balance adjustment."
These amounts produce totals that are mathematically inconsistent with authorized assessment formulas. Declaration §5.8 authorizes only one 10% late charge per delinquent assessment, not interest, quarterly fees, or compounded penalties.
Despite this, Mr. Skipworth relied on these inconsistent amounts in demand letters, litigation filings, and foreclosure claims.
3. Conflict of Interest: Treating DANA as the Directing Authority
Email correspondence shows Mr. Skipworth repeatedly seeking instructions from DANA instead of EMHOA's Board (Exhibit 6).
Because DANA is not the client and had financial incentives tied to collections, its interests were materially adverse to EMHOA's directives—triggering Rule 1.06(b). No disclosure or written waiver was obtained.
4. False and Contradictory Statements to the Client
On October 17, 2023, Mr. Skipworth forwarded the Davis Miles letter concerning Treviño to EMHOA's president (Exhibit 14), demonstrating he had received it.
On August 7, 2024, he told DANA he had never received that letter (Exhibit 15).
Thus, on October 17, 2023 he told the Board he had received the letter, but on August 7, 2024 he told DANA he had not—an irreconcilably inconsistent statement. This violates Rules 4.01 and 8.04(a)(3).
5. Failure to Address Disputed Debt and Record Requests
On September 18, 2023, I disputed the debt in writing to both EMHOA and Mr. Skipworth (Exhibits 20a & 20b). Despite this, he continued collecting based on unverified figures from Sperlonga and DANA (Exhibit 19). This reflects inadequate investigation and failure to act with reasonable diligence.
III. Relevant Laws
- Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
- Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure
- EMHOA's governing documents (Exhibit 10)
- New Mexico HOA Act (for factual context)
IV. Potential Next Steps
- Review attorney-client communications demonstrating unauthorized direction by DANA.
- Examine the accounting discrepancies and whether Skipworth conducted any independent verification.
- Determine whether similar unauthorized filings were made on behalf of other associations.
- Evaluate whether conflicts were disclosed or waivers obtained.
V. Requested Relief
I respectfully request that the State Bar of Texas investigate these violations and impose appropriate discipline based on the documented pattern of unauthorized litigation, conflicted representation, reliance on unreliable accounting, and contradictory statements to the client.
Respectfully submitted this 6th day of December, 2025,
Daniel Loya