Introduction
This grievance arises from a sustained pattern of misconduct by attorney Robert A. Skipworth in his representation of homeowners’ associations in El Paso, Texas, and New Mexico. Rather than advising his clients neutrally and in accordance with the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, Respondent repeatedly abused his professional position to advance personal vendettas, misrepresent facts, and weaponize litigation and association governance against a single homeowner, Ronald Perkins, and his family.
Respondent’s misconduct is not speculative; it is established by documentary evidence, including Respondent’s own signed pleadings, letters, and communications. Several cornerstone exhibits demonstrate the knowing, deliberate nature of these violations:
- 2018 Agency Appointment & HOA Minutes: Perkins was duly appointed as the agent of Leticia Treviño in 2018, and El Mirador HOA minutes from 2019 confirm recognition of his authority.
- 2023-10-26 Asiatica Trust Power of Attorney: Executed and notarized by Trustee Leticia Treviño, this POA appointed Perkins as Attorney-in-Fact for all Trust matters, including representation of the Trust’s El Mirador property. Respondent acknowledged the need for such an instrument in a July 26, 2024 email to DANA’s agent, yet later advanced arguments in pleadings and depositions that Perkins lacked standing or was “not a homeowner.” These claims were knowingly false in light of the notarized POA.
- 2024-11-19 Secretary Email & 2024-11-21 Lawsuits: On November 19, 2024, Respondent’s own secretary confirmed to DANA that lawsuits against Treviño and Loya had not been filed because they did not meet the HOA’s $7,500 foreclosure threshold. Two days later, Respondent filed those lawsuits anyway, without client authority and in direct violation of board policy, falsely purporting to represent the El Mirador HOA.
- 2025-02-15 Sierra del Sol Appointment & Trespass Events: On February 15, 2025, the Sierra del Sol Board of Directors lawfully appointed Perkins as Managing Agent under Articles IV(q), X(8)(a), and XI(1) of the bylaws. Acting under this authority, and in the presence of police officers, Perkins secured the clubhouse and issued trespass warnings to Respondent and DANA’s representative, Sema Gonzalez. Respondent was present and knew to a legal certainty that Perkins was lawfully acting as Managing Agent. Nonetheless, in subsequent letters, petitions, and pleadings, Respondent accused Perkins of burglary and theft.
- 2025-08-29 Stoltz Petition: Circulated to all Sierra del Sol homeowners and signed by Respondent, this petition sought removal of elected board members and contained defamatory statements that Perkins had a fraud conviction and had served eight years in prison for that conviction. These statements were false. The petition was also non-compliant with the HOA’s bylaws. By signing it, Respondent personally endorsed and validated defamatory propaganda in a governance dispute.
Taken together, these exhibits demonstrate clear violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.02, Rule 1.06, Rule 1.12, Rule 3.01, Rule 3.03, Rule 4.04, Rule 8.04(a)(3), and Rule 8.04(a)(12).
Factual Background
I. Early Recognition of Perkins’s Authority (2018–2019)
In 2018, homeowner Leticia Treviño appointed Ronald Perkins as her agent for all matters relating to her property in El Mirador. This authority was formalized in signed instruments and confirmed in 2019 HOA minutes. These records establish Perkins’s standing within the Association — standing that Respondent later denied, despite clear evidence.
II. Escalation of Hostility and Retaliation (2021–2023)
In 2021, HOA officer David Pierce issued a cease-and-desist letter against Perkins (Ex. 2), inflating claims about website content to cast Perkins in a false light.
By 2023, DANA Properties, Inc. (“DANA”), owned by Sheldon Wheeler, had been installed as El Mirador’s management company through a defective special meeting process. Respondent endorsed DANA’s contract despite notice and voting defects.
On March 13, 2023, Respondent invoiced the HOA for “Complaints against Perkins” and for a “Letter to lawsuit participants and legal research on mental anguish” (Ex. 3). This invoice demonstrates Respondent was representing individuals — likely including David and Judi Pierce, along with allied board members Richard Doyle and David Chavez, Jr. — in planning litigation against Perkins and his family, rather than advising the Association as a corporate entity. At the time, Judi Pierce had already served as EMHOA Secretary (2017), and David Pierce became a board member just weeks later.
III. Perkins’s Authority Reaffirmed (October 2023)
On October 26, 2023, Leticia Treviño, as Trustee of the Asiatica Trust, executed a durable Power of Attorney appointing Perkins as Attorney-in-Fact for all Trust matters, including the Trust’s El Mirador property. This POA was notarized the following day in El Paso (Ex. 4).
This instrument reaffirmed Perkins’s standing, updating his authority to reflect the Trust’s ownership. Respondent himself acknowledged the need for such an instrument in a July 26, 2024 email to DANA’s agent. Yet in later pleadings and depositions, Respondent claimed Perkins lacked standing — arguments knowingly false in light of the notarized POA.
IV. Escalation into Litigation and Retaliation (2024)
In March 2024, Respondent issued a letter to Perkins and Leticia Treviño’s successor, misrepresenting Perkins’s authority. Around the same time, Perkins filed a Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) complaint against DANA. On April 18, 2024, TREC issued a Cease-and-Desist to DANA. DANA retaliated on April 24, 2024, threatening to shift TREC legal costs onto the HOA.
By summer 2024, despite HOA policy limiting foreclosure actions to arrearages above $7,500, Respondent pressed DANA to authorize lawsuits against Perkins and Treviño “despite policy.” In a September 5, 2024 email, Respondent asked DANA directly: “When can I sue this guy?” On September 16, 2024, the HOA Board reaffirmed its preference for amicable resolutions.
On November 19, 2024, Respondent’s secretary confirmed to DANA that lawsuits against Treviño and Loya had not been filed because they did not meet the $7,500 threshold. Nevertheless, on November 21, 2024, Respondent filed both lawsuits, falsely purporting to represent the HOA.
V. Sierra del Sol Appointment and Retaliatory Falsehoods (2025)
On February 15, 2025, the Sierra del Sol Board lawfully appointed Perkins as Managing Agent under Articles IV(q), X(8)(a), and XI(1) of the bylaws. Acting under this authority, Perkins secured the clubhouse with locksmith assistance and police standby, with Board President Jennifer Rowden publicly confirming the appointment.
That same day, Respondent and DANA’s representative Sema Gonzalez were trespassed from SDSHOA property by Perkins through police officers they brought with them. Respondent was present and thus knew to a legal certainty that Perkins was lawfully acting as Managing Agent.
Despite this, on March 10, 2025, Respondent co-signed a letter with Arthur Stoltz accusing Perkins of burglary, theft of files and money, destruction of security cameras, and computer sabotage. On May 2, 2025, Respondent repeated these allegations in a sworn Third Amended Petition (Ex. 14), seeking appointment of a receiver and damages exceeding $100,000.
On June 20, 2025, during a deposition of the El Mirador HOA, Respondent advanced the false narrative that Perkins lacked standing. On June 27, 2025, Respondent wrote to opposing counsel claiming Perkins had burglarized DANA’s offices and altered evidence. On July 23, 2025, during the deposition of Arthur Stoltz, the same allegations were repeated under oath with Respondent as counsel.
Finally, on August 29, 2025, Respondent signed and approved a petition circulated to 120 Sierra del Sol homeowners, seeking removal of elected directors (Ex. 15). The petition falsely alleged that Perkins had a fraud conviction and had served eight years in prison for that conviction. These statements were false. The petition was also non-compliant with HOA bylaws. By signing it, Respondent personally endorsed defamatory propaganda in a governance dispute.
Applicable Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.02 – Scope of Representation
Standard: A lawyer must abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and must not pursue actions without client authority.
Violation: Respondent filed lawsuits on behalf of the El Mirador HOA against Leticia Treviño and Daniel Loya without client authorization and contrary to established board policy. The Board had adopted a foreclosure threshold of $7,500, confirmed in writing by DANA and again by Respondent’s own office. Despite this, Respondent filed both suits two days after his secretary confirmed they had not been filed because they did not meet the threshold.
Supporting Exhibits:
Rule 1.06 – Conflict of Interest
Standard: A lawyer must not represent interests that are materially adverse to a client or that compromise loyalty.
Violation: Respondent aligned with individual board members and management personnel (including David and Judi Pierce, Richard Doyle, Robert Chavez, Stoltz, and DANA) against the HOA membership as a whole. He represented their personal animus toward Perkins as though it were the position of the Association.
Supporting Exhibits:
Rule 1.12 – Organization as Client
Standard: When representing an organization, a lawyer’s duty is to the entity itself, not its officers, directors, or vendors.
Violation: Respondent repeatedly acted on behalf of insiders and DANA Properties rather than the HOA. He disregarded Perkins’s documented agency authority, siding instead with factions hostile to Perkins.
Supporting Exhibits:
- Ex. 3 – 2023-03-13 Invoice (identifies “individuals,” not HOA, as client).
- Ex. 4 – 2023-10-26 Asiatica Trust POA (reaffirmed Perkins’s standing).
- Ex. 7 – 2024-07-26 Skipworth-to-Sema Email (acknowledging agency mechanics).
- Ex. 12 – 2025-02-15 SDS Trespass Events (Perkins’s lawful authority as Managing Agent).
- Ex. 15 – 2025-08-29 Stoltz Petition (non-compliant with bylaws, signed by Respondent).
Rule 3.01 – Meritorious Claims
Standard: A lawyer must not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless the lawyer reasonably believes there is a basis in law and fact that is not frivolous.
Violation: Respondent initiated frivolous, retaliatory suits against homeowners, using litigation as a tool of harassment rather than legitimate enforcement.
Supporting Exhibits:
Rule 3.03 – Candor Toward the Tribunal
Standard: A lawyer must not knowingly make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct false statements previously made.
Violation: Respondent misrepresented Perkins’s standing despite knowing of the valid 2023 Asiatica POA, and advanced false allegations of burglary and sabotage in pleadings and depositions.
Supporting Exhibits:
- Ex. 4 – 2023-10-26 Asiatica POA (Perkins’s standing reaffirmed).
- Ex. 7 – 2024-07-26 Skipworth-to-Sema Email (knowledge of agency mechanics).
- Ex. 14 – 2025-05-02 Sierra del Sol Petition (false burglary allegations).
- Ex. 18 – 2025-06-20 El Mirador Deposition.
- Ex. 19 – 2025-06-27 Letter to Childress.
- Ex. 20 – 2025-07-23 Stoltz Deposition.
Rule 4.04 – Respect for Rights of Third Persons
Standard: A lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.
Violation: Respondent used legal processes and HOA resources primarily to burden and harass Perkins, including billing the HOA for “Complaints against Perkins” and pursuing retaliatory enforcement.
Supporting Exhibits:
Rule 8.04(a)(3) – Dishonesty and Misrepresentation
Standard: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Violation: Respondent knowingly advanced false narratives that Perkins was unauthorized, had committed burglary and sabotage, and even had a fraud conviction with an eight-year prison sentence. These statements were patently false and defamatory.
Supporting Exhibits:
- Ex. 4 – 2023-10-26 Asiatica POA (contradicting standing claims).
- Ex. 5 – 2024-03-20 Skipworth Letter to Perkins & Hockenberry.
- Ex. 13 – 2025-03-10 Stoltz/Skipworth Letter.
- Ex. 14 – 2025-05-02 Sierra del Sol Petition.
- Ex. 19 – 2025-06-27 Skipworth Letter to Childress.
- Ex. 15 – 2025-08-29 Stoltz Petition (false conviction and prison claim).
Rule 8.04(a)(12) – Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
Standard: A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that obstructs or undermines the administration of justice.
Violation: Respondent weaponized HOA governance, litigation, and management companies to retaliate against Perkins, creating false narratives of criminality and burdening courts with frivolous suits.
Supporting Exhibits:
- Ex. 3 – 2023-03-13 Invoice (targeting Perkins with “complaints”).
- Ex. 6 – 2024-04-18 TREC Cease-and-Desist (foundation for retaliation).
- Ex. 8 – 2024-09-05 Skipworth Email (“When can I sue this guy?”).
- Ex. 12 – 2025-02-15 SDS Trespass Events (Respondent trespassed by police).
- Ex. 13 – 2025-03-10 Stoltz/Skipworth Letter.
- Ex. 14 – 2025-05-02 Sierra del Sol Petition.
- Ex. 15 – 2025-08-29 Stoltz Petition.
Conclusion and Prayer for Relief
The evidence establishes a deliberate pattern of dishonesty, abuse of process, and misuse of professional authority by Respondent. This pattern undermined association governance, misled courts, and inflicted direct harm on homeowners.
Complainant respectfully requests that the State Bar of Texas:
- Investigate the conduct of Robert A. Skipworth as detailed herein.
- Find violations of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Impose appropriate discipline, up to and including suspension or disbarment.
- Grant such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
