2026 Top Franchise Lawyers You Should Know: Robert F. Salkowski — Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A.

Franchise Legal Player: Robert F. Salkowski
Firm: Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A.

Robert F. Salkowski has built a career representing franchisees in some of the most complex disputes in the franchising world. As an attorney with Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A., Salkowski focuses on high-stakes litigation and arbitration, advocating for operators navigating contractual and economic pressures within franchise systems. His work centers on helping franchisees understand their leverage, enforce their rights and navigate a legal landscape that often favors franchisors.

1851 Franchise connected with Salkowski to discuss the legal issues brands sometimes overlook, the structural pitfalls emerging franchisors face and the lessons that decades of franchise dispute work have taught him about advising clients.

1851 Franchise: What originally drew you to franchise law, and what has kept you engaged in the space over time?

Robert F. Salkowski: When I began practicing, franchising was already expanding rapidly, but it had not yet achieved the cultural and economic dominance it has today. Now, franchise brands are embedded in virtually every aspect of daily life. When I entered the field, there were far fewer attorneys focused specifically on franchise law, and even fewer who concentrated on representing franchisees.

I joined a firm that had the financial resources, the reputation and the institutional commitment to take on complex, high-stakes matters against well-capitalized franchisors and their highly paid attorneys. Representing franchisees is not easy work. Franchise agreements are typically lengthy, one-sided and drafted to give franchisors broad discretion. What drew me in, and what has kept me engaged, is the challenge of navigating those realities and finding ways to create leverage where, on paper, very little appears to exist.

Franchisees invest their savings, sign personal guarantees and build local businesses under national brands. Helping them enforce their rights and hold franchisors accountable in a world tilted against them continues to be meaningful and intellectually demanding work.

1851: As franchising continues to evolve, what legal issue do you see brands most often underestimating today?

Salkowski: One issue franchisors continually underestimate is the friction created by the use of advertising funds, particularly when those funds are used for general and administrative expenses, even if technically permitted by the franchise agreement.

Franchisors are under pressure to optimize margins. One way that sometimes manifests is through allocating internal salaries, overhead, technology costs or other G&A expenses to the advertising fund. The documents may allow broad discretion, but that does not mean the practice aligns with franchisee expectations. Franchisees contribute to ad funds with the understanding that their dollars will drive consumer-facing marketing that increases traffic and sales.

When they see those funds absorbed by internal allocations rather than media spend or brand-building initiatives, it creates immediate distrust. Even if the contract allows it, it rarely sits well at the unit level. What begins as a dispute over ad fund transparency often exposes deeper structural issues — declining unit economics, lack of system support, aggressive growth strategies or a perceived disconnect between corporate incentives and franchisee profitability.

Advertising fund disputes are rarely just about accounting; they are about confidence in leadership and whether the franchisor is acting as a steward of the system or simply there to extract royalties and other fees. Brands that view ad fund language as a shield miss the broader point. Legal permissibility does not eliminate relational and litigation risk. Once franchisees begin scrutinizing fund usage, they often begin scrutinizing everything else.

1851: In your experience, where do emerging franchisors tend to get tripped up from a compliance or documentation standpoint?

Salkowski: Emerging franchisors often begin franchising before their system is fully mature or operationally refined. They convert a concept that works in one or two company-owned locations into a franchise model without stress-testing supply chains, labor models, technology platforms, field support capacity or unit economics across multiple markets. The legal documents may look complete, but the underlying system is still evolving. That disconnect creates risk.

Another recurring issue is the use of “sweetheart deals” to close early sales. In the rush to grow, some franchisors offer discounts, large territories, side letters or informal assurances that are not consistently documented or integrated into the core agreements. Those early concessions frequently create internal inequities and compliance problems later.

Cost-cutting on legal counsel is another common misstep. Some emerging brands engage inexperienced franchise counsel who rely heavily on generic form franchise agreements that are not tailored to the specific system. A franchise agreement is not a commodity; it must align with the brand’s actual operational model, revenue streams, supply chain structure and growth strategy. When the documentation does not match how the system truly operates, inconsistencies surface in enforcement, disclosure and litigation.

1851: How should franchisors be thinking about risk management as they scale into new markets or add new unit growth strategies?

Salkowski: Franchisors need to understand that growth does not cure structural weaknesses; it magnifies them. Before scaling into new markets or accelerating unit development, they should stress-test unit economics and confirm that franchisees are actually profitable. Expanding a system where operators are struggling only compounds risk.

Development decisions must also be disciplined and data-driven. Oversaturation, encroachment and aggressive proximity placements may boost short-term royalties but often create long-term instability and litigation exposure.

1851: What distinguishes your approach or philosophy when working with franchise clients?

Salkowski: Representing franchisees requires more than technical legal skill. In many situations, you have to function as both lawyer and psychologist. Most franchisees have invested their life savings, signed personal guarantees and tied their financial future — and often their family’s stability — to a single brand. When a dispute arises, the stress is not theoretical. It can threaten their business, their home and their marriage.

That reality shapes how I approach every matter. I believe in being direct and candid, even when the advice is difficult to hear. Sugarcoating risk does not help a client who is already under pressure. At the same time, legal strategy must account for the human component. A franchisee in crisis may be operating from fear or frustration, and part of my role is to create clarity — separating emotion from leverage, and short-term reaction from long-term positioning.

My philosophy is grounded in three principles: understand the economics, understand the documents and understand the person. Franchise disputes are rarely just about contract language. They are about whether the unit-level economics work and whether the operator can realistically survive the fight. Advising clients responsibly means addressing all of those factors, not just the legal theory.

1851: Looking back, what lesson from your legal career has had the greatest impact on how you advise clients today?

Salkowski: One of the most important lessons I learned very early on in my career is that clients often tell you what they want you to know, not necessarily what you need to know. Some assume certain facts will never surface. Others believe a detail is insignificant or irrelevant and therefore leave it out. In litigation and arbitration, that assumption can be fatal.

Because I cannot afford surprises, I make clients aware of that from the outset. I explain clearly that my job is not simply to advocate — it is to pressure-test the case before the other side does. That requires complete candor. If there is a bad fact, I would rather confront it early, evaluate its impact and develop a strategy around it than discover it for the first time in a deposition or hearing.

Advising clients responsibly is not about listening and agreeing with their version of events. It requires disciplined fact development, asking difficult questions, revisiting assumptions and continuing to probe until I am confident that I have the full picture. In franchise disputes — where documentation, financial records and credibility often determine outcomes — preparation and transparency are not optional; they are essential.

Every great franchisee had help buying a franchise. Want to learn more about how 1851 helps franchisees find the right franchise opportunity? Visit www.1851growthclub.com and start your journey.