Members of the state Supreme Court seemed hesitant on Tuesday to block a recent law school graduate with a long history of political activism in Colorado from practicing law, despite findings that he obstructed attorney regulators from learning about child neglect and domestic violence allegations.
Matthew Tobin Arnold was in his mid-fifties when he graduated from law school in 2022. Previously, Arnoldran as a Republicanfor University of Colorado regent, advocated against Supreme Court justices' retentionandfiled dozens of campaign finance complaints.Arnold believed his past activism played a role in the decision last year to reject his admission to the practice of law in Colorado.
Attorney regulators told a different story: Arnold failed to disclose on his bar application that he was recently involved in a child neglect case, formally known as a dependency and neglect matter. He also did not reveal his ex-spouse's domestic violence allegations. When an investigator prodded him for information, Arnold dragged his feet and only shared select documents from the case.
Notwithstanding Arnold's career and achievements, a hearing board concluded Arnold's lack of "honesty and candor" was problematic and denied him admission to practice.
Arnold appealed to the Supreme Court, where the parties noted the lack of any similar case in Colorado's history. During oral arguments, Justice Richard L. Gabriel appeared to be the member most uncomfortable with shutting Arnold out of the legal profession for the way he handled the admissions process.
"My concern is this feels like an immense sanction for conduct that I don’t see any precedent for," he said. "Just as an objective observer, it feels like there was a whole lot of distrust on both sides here."
Although the hearing board previously believed Arnold's concealment meant there was no realistic way to admit him to the bar with safeguards— like having a mentor in place to monitor him— some justices sought an alternative to outright denial.
"Is there any condition that you, having a chance to weigh in on this, think would be more useful or less useful?" asked Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter.
"If the court were to grant admission with conditions," respondedAlan C. Obye with the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel,"there really isn’t anything I can imagine that would prevent this kind of conduct from happening again."
Arnold is an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and a 1988 graduate of the University of Colorado. Among his political activities, he founded Clear the Bench and Campaign Integrity Watchdog, and even argued as a non-attorney before the state Supreme Court. In 2019, he applied to Creighton University's law school in Nebraska. He graduated in 2022.
After Arnold applied to the Colorado bar, an investigator noted potential problems. The application asked Arnold to list "any civil action" that named him as a party, as well as any times he had been investigated for "any offense against the law." Finally, a question asked Arnold to list "any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualifications."
Arnold did not mention that his family was involved in a dependency and neglect case between 2019 and 2020, in which his children were removed for several months from the home. In addition, police came to Arnold's home in response to allegations of domestic violence from his ex-wife.
The investigator told Arnold the information "should have been disclosed" on his application, to which Arnold responded that he was unclear the application required those details. Although Arnold subsequently provided some documentation about the court proceedings,which ultimately found no credible evidence of child abuse or domestic violence, he withheld or only partially provided other files.
A panel of attorney admissions officials initially concluded Arnold avoided "sharing the full story." It also faulted Arnold for his conduct in law school, where he said the N-word to a professor, wore a burqa to class ostensibly in protest of COVID-19 mask mandates and affixed a Star of David to his laptop, upsetting other students.
In November, a two-member hearing board upheld the panel's ultimate conclusion that Arnold should not be admitted to practice law. First, it disagreed that Arnold's conduct in law school was disqualifying. While his behavior was "provocative and obnoxious," it fell under the category of protected speech.
However, the hearing board agreed Arnold's approach to disclosing his dependency and neglect case demonstrated a lack of candor, integrity and good judgment.
"He failed to disclose a major life event that implicated character and fitness concerns. He employed hypertechnical and disingenuous interpretations of bar application questions to avoid answering the questions candidly. He dragged his feet in providing certain requested documents and justified his refusal to produce others," wrote board members Nicole L. Bartos and Philip A. Cherner.
Arnold then appealed his denial to the Supreme Court.
"I think Mr. Arnold was subjected to scrutiny that other applicants are not subjected to," argued his lawyer,Troy R. Rackham. "Confusion about or incomplete responses to certain questions on the bar exam, standing alone, are not a sufficient basis to deny someone's application."
In response, the attorney regulation office said the facts of Arnold's underlying case were now largely irrelevant because the issue had morphed into his failure to timely disclose when asked.
"Your position," Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. asked Obye, "is that even if he answered the questions properly or reasonably, that he still merits being denied admission because of what happened afterwards?"
"Correct," said Obye. "The lack of candor is not just the answers to the application questions."
"It strikes me that the concern with the lack of candor is when someone acts out of deceit," said Justice Monica M.Márquez. With Arnold, "I see a resistance to give anything more than what is absolutely necessary and what’s been requested. And perhaps some friction and stubbornness, maybe. But I’m not seeing that deceit."
Obye pointed to Arnold's testimony that if admitted, he had an interest in becoming a prosecutor. Given prosecutors' constitutional obligation to share evidence favorable to the defense, Obye had "great pause, great concern" about Arnold's past conduct.
"There was at least the fleeting suggestion, speculation, that maybe (the attorney regulators') position in this case is informed by Mr. Arnold’s political views," observed Justice William W. Hood III, "or the fact that he’s just difficult at times."
"There is no motivation on my part or anybody who I know’s part to that effect," Obye replied.
The case isIn the Matter of Arnold.
