Ordered That Mr. Arnold Is Hereby Publically Reprimanded For His Conduct In

[carlie]

http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/09-8005_Arnold_June_2011_Reprimand_order.pdf

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 09-8005

IN RE: ANTHONY D. ARNOLD, MEMBER OF THE BAR

Before LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges

O R D E R

This case arises out of attorney Anthony Arnold's conduct in representing the appellant in

Singleton v. Shinseki, Case No. 08-2485. Mr. Arnold is the subject of both a grievance filed with

this Court, and a separate disciplinary complaint filed with the Attorney Grievance Commission of

Maryland. Both actions arise from the facts concerning Case No. 08-2485. Moreover, the

disciplinary rules for the Maryland bar and this Court's bar are similar. The Maryland Rules of

Professional Conduct mirror the Model Rules of Professional of Conduct (Model Rules). The Model

Rules constitute this Court’s “disciplinary standard for practice” pursuant to this Court’s Rules of

Admission and Practice ("A&P Rules") 4(a).

As detailed below, on November 18, 2010, the AttorneyGrievance Commission ofMaryland

(Maryland Commission) issued a public reprimand of Mr. Arnold. Pursuant to this order, and in

accordance with this Court's Admission and Practice (A&P) Rule 7(d)(3)(B), this Court will impose

reciprocal discipline in the form of a public reprimand.

After Mr. Arnold filed a notice of appearance in Case No. 08-2485 on February 20, 2009, the

genesis of this case was Mr. Arnold's failure to file a routine statement of the issues, despite the

Court's April 17, 2009, order directing him to do so pursuant to Rule 33(a) of the Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure ("P&P Rules"). A statement of the issues is a necessary prelude to this

Court's routine briefing conference attended by the parties' representatives and a Court staff attorney.

The Court filed a second order on May 12, 2009, requiring Mr. Arnold to file the statement

within three days. Mr. Arnold filed a motion on May 20th, requesting permission to submit the

documents late. The Court granted his request, but Mr. Arnold did not submit the documents before

the June 3rd briefing conference, as required.

Consequently, the Court was forced to issue a third

order requiring that the documents be filed within three days. Again, Mr. Arnold did not respond.

The Court next issued a show cause order ("SCO") as to “why further appropriate action should not

be taken.” Mr. Arnold still did not respond, and a second SCO was issued on June 29th, this time

as to why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Court received no response from Mr. Arnold

regarding the second SCO.

On June 29, 2009, the Court received a letter from the Mr. Arnold’s client stating that she

was dismissing Mr. Arnold. The Court stayed the proceedings on July 6th, notifying Mr. Arnold that

he would be responsible for the case unless and until he filed, and the Court granted, his motion to withdraw from representation.

Mr. Arnold filed a motion to withdraw on July 15th. However, the

motion did not comply with P&P Rules 27(a)(4) and 46(d), which specify the content required for

motions to the Court. The Court advised Mr. Arnold of the noncompliant motion on July 20th, and

stayed the case to allow him to file a rule-compliant motion to withdraw. Mr. Arnold never filed that

motion.

The Court issued its third SCO on August 12, 2009, as to why Mr. Arnold should not be

removed from the case, and why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. Again,

Mr. Arnold failed to respond.

As a result, on September 3, 2009, the Court removed Mr. Arnold

from the case and an internal grievance was filed with the Clerk against Mr. Arnold. After the Chief

Judge referred the grievance to this Panel on October 30, 2009, pursuant to A&P Rule 6(a), the

Panel issued an SCO to Mr. Arnold as to why he should not be suspended from practice before the

Court. Mr. Arnold’s February 2, 2010, response acknowledged that the facts described by the Court

and appellant were accurate, but cited as an explanation a loss of “all data and case history” as a

result of a computer virus. After issuing another SCO pursuant to A&P Rule 6(b)(1)(B) as to why

this case should not go to the Court's Committee on Admission and Practice ("Committee") for its

recommendation, and reviewingMr. Arnold's response,the Panel referred this case to the Committee

on May 6, 2010.

The Committee deferred further action pending a decision by the Maryland Commission.

The Maryland grievance procedure had been initiated by the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono

Program, through whom Mr. Arnold came to represent the appellant. On November 18, 2010, the

Maryland Commission issued a public reprimand of Mr. Arnold.

The Maryland Commission found that Mr. Arnold’s conduct in Case No. 08-2485, as described above, violated Maryland Rules of

Professional Conduct (Md. RPC) Rule 1.1, requiring thoroughness and preparation, and Rule 1.4,

requiring that attorneys communicate the status of cases to their clients, abide by clients’ decisions

regarding objectives, and provide clients with the information necessary to make informed decisions

about their case.

Additionally, the Maryland Commission found violations of Md. RPC Rule

1.16(d), requiring attorneys to surrender papers and property to which a client is entitled, and Rule

8.1, requiring cooperation with the Office of Bar Counsel.

On March 28, 2011, the Committee recommended to the Panel that the Court impose

reciprocal discipline in the form of a public reprimand. The Court hereby adopts that

recommendation. As a result, the Court will impose reciprocal discipline in accordance with A&P

Rule 7(d)(3)(B).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Mr. Arnold is hereby publically reprimanded for his conduct in

Singleton v. Shinseki, No. 08-2485, as described in this Order.

DATED: JUNE 2, 2011 PER CURIAM.

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED"

[broncovet]

Hmmm...

If it was true that the file was destroyed by a virus on the attorneys computer one would wonder why:

1. He could not get electronic copies from his client. Further, I know that a skilled computer professional can usually recover data from an "infected" computer. Finally, would it not be reasonable that the attorney have "backup copies" of important data like this to protect his clients? I dont think it matters that he is proceeding pro bono, the attorney has agreed to those terms and he should still have a responsibility to protect his clients interests, and this would include loss of key evidence by not bothering to back it up.

2. Why he waited that long to tell the court that?

This really looks like the attorney is "running" and then he makes excuses when he gets caught.

[Berta]

His law firm website went down.

I sure hope he isn't a VA fiduciary too but I doubt that.

The Rules of state practice (they quote Maryland rules in the decision) apply similiarly to every lawyer in every state.

Sometimes vets are reluctant to even call their POA attorneys about their claims.

Or they don't get an adequate response from them.

And this guy is from the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium which holds I believe MANY fine lawyers but then again pro bono can mean you get what you pay for.

This is a disgrace.