The Colorado Supreme Court last month ordered an attorney be admitted to practice law over the recommendation of a regulatory board that concluded his “gamesmanship” during the admissions process continued to raise concerns about his character.

Matthew Tobin Arnold sought to join the Colorado bar following his 2022 law school graduation. However, during multiple stages of the process, attorney regulators became wary that Arnold was withholding information about a prior child neglect case. Ultimately, they recommended against Arnold’s admission, citing “honesty and candor” issues.

The Supreme Court held oral arguments in April, where justices appeared uncomfortable with barring Arnold outright from practicing law in the absence of any precedent. After ordering Arnold to produce the files he withheld from regulators, the court issued an order on Sept. 12 overriding the recommendation without providing an explanation.

“As even the Hearing Board had to admit, the complete file corroborated and substantiated my characterization of what had occurred, and ‘my role in the matter,'” said Arnold, referring to the child neglect case at the center of his contested admission. “Most significantly, the Board acknowledged a lack of any underlying disqualifying misconduct. Yet they still recommended against my admission.”

The Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel, which argued against Arnold’s admission, declined to comment.

Scott Cummings, a professor of legal ethics at UCLA School of Law, said an aspiring lawyer’s questionable or unprofessional conduct in the past does not necessarily prohibit their admission categorically. But, he cautioned, applicants should “absolutely be open to scrutiny.”

“The big ‘no’ is to omit information that is relevant to the decision,” Cummings said. “Oftentimes, for example, potential applicants will ask about whether or not they should include information about past drug usage or past criminal activity that reflects poorly, potentially, at an earlier point in time. And the answer to that question is always that you have to include it.”

Arnold was in his mid-fifties when he graduated from law school. Previously, he ran as a Republican for University of Colorado regent, advocated against Supreme Court justices’ retention and filed dozens of campaign finance complaints. Arnold believed his past activism played a role in the initial decision to reject his admission to practice 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. When an investigator prodded him for information, Arnold dragged his feet and only shared select documents from the case, regulators said.

Notwithstanding Arnold’s career and achievements, a hearing board concluded Arnold’s lack of honesty and candor was disqualifying.

During oral arguments, some members of the Supreme Court appeared interested in a solution that would enable Arnold to start his career as an attorney, perhaps with conditions attached.

“My concern is this feels like an immense sanction for conduct that I don’t see any precedent for,” said Justice Richard L. Gabriel. “Just as an objective observer, it feels like there was a whole lot of distrust on both sides here.”

A panel of attorney admissions officials initially concluded Arnold avoided “sharing the full story” about his child neglect case. It also faulted Arnold for actions in law school, where his conduct included using the N-word to illustrate a point, wearing a burqa to class and affixing a Star of David to his laptop, upsetting other students.

Subsequently, a hearing board upheld the panel’s conclusion that Arnold should not be admitted to practice law. While the board believed Arnold’s law school conduct fell under the category of protected speech, it could not overlook Arnold’s failure to disclose details about a “major life event that implicated character and fitness concerns.”

After hearing arguments, the Supreme Court ordered Arnold to disclose the child neglect case file in detail to attorney regulators. Upon examining more than 600 pages, the hearing board — consisting of Presiding Disciplinary Judge Bryon M. Large and attorneys Nicole L. Bartos and Philip A. Cherner — reiterated their concerns about Arnold.

“Giving him the broadest benefit of a doubt still leads to the conclusion that throughout the entire character and fitness proceeding, he exercised discretion about what he would disclose, how much he would disclose, and when he would disclose it,” the board wrote on July 31. “Only by order of the Colorado Supreme Court, with his admission hanging in the balance, did he finally produce requested records. Those records leave us with more questions than answers.”

The board elaborated that the records “corroborate the broad strokes” of Arnold’s description that no credible abuse or domestic violence took place. However, the file raised “new areas that we believe warrant investigation,” including other alleged misconduct, as well as contradictory details.

“Applicant’s gamesmanship took away from Admissions the opportunity to review these records and inquire into the issues the records raise,” the hearing board warned.

In response to the latest recommendation, Arnold reiterated that he provided the information requested of him and to deny him admission would be unprecedented. He also raised potential misconduct by attorney regulators in circulating a “red flag form” — a security notification for the regulators’ office premised on a concerning statement Arnold allegedly made.

The hearing board did not mention the red flag form, but denied Arnold’s political views were a factor in its recommendation.

Cummings, the ethics professor, said the Supreme Court’s determination that Arnold is fit to practice law does not insulate him from future investigation.

“They’re watching all of us. And to the extent anyone does anything after the fact, the bar has the power of investigation and sanction,” he said. “I’m not sure, in other words, this person is any differently positioned.”

Arnold told Colorado Politics he has filed criminal and ethical complaints against regulators.

“Although justice was delayed, it was ultimately not denied. We win, they lose,” he said.

The case is In the Matter of Arnold.