DISCIPLINARY GRIEVANCES AGAINST PRACTITIONERS AT THE UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

January 1, 2017 – February 1, 2022

Introduction

This Compendium illustrates examples of circumstances that have led to grievances and 

disciplinary proceedings at the Court. Practitioners should refer to the Court’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (“P&P Rules”), E-filing Rules, Rules of Admission and Practice (“A&P Rules”), and the 

ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (“Model Rules”) for the rules and professional standards to 

which they must adhere.

Between January 1, 2017 and February 1, 2022, fifteen grievances were filed and have been 

concluded. Of those grievances, four were filed by the Court, seven were filed by appellants, and four 

were reciprocal discipline.

Of the fifteen grievances, seven concluded with the Court imposing discipline. Discipline in these 

cases included private admonitions, public reprimands, suspensions of various lengths, imposition of 

probationary periods, mandated CLE courses, and disbarment. Although eight of the grievances did not 

result in discipline, in half of those cases the practitioner involved was required, at a minimum, to respond 

to orders of the Court as to the nature of the grievance.

The categorization of each case in the bar and pie charts reflect the primary type of misconduct 

alleged in each grievance. The summaries that follow include a brief description of the conduct at issue in 

each case, and whether discipline was imposed. Allegations of misconduct are displayed in italicized text, 

whereas the result of each case is displayed in bolded text. Summaries appear chronologically.

Grievances by Category Between January 1, 2017 – April 1, 2022

GRIEVANCE TYPE FREQUENCY DISCIPLINE

Candor to the Court 3 0

Communication 2 0

Competence and Diligence 6 3

License Status/Reciprocal 4 4

Candor to the 

Court, 3

Communication, 

Competence and 2

Diligence, 6

License 

Status/Reciprocal, 

4

Frequency of Grievance
2

Summaries of Disciplinary Cases

1. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney failed to file a timely brief after assuming a 

motion for an extension had been granted, and then filed multiple untimely motions for a second 

extension. The appeal was dismissed for failure to file the brief, and was only reinstated by a 

panel after a motion for reconsideration. The Court also reviewed allegations that the same

attorney acted in an “abusive” or “degrading” manner toward the attorney’s clients. The Court 

 issued a warning letter to the attorney. [17-8001].

2. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney (1) filed a frivolous motion to stay proceedings to 

coerce a client into filing a new claim and (2) generally made false statements to the Court. The 

Court did not impose discipline because there was no evidence to support the allegations. [17-

8002].

3. The Court imposed reciprocal discipline on an attorney who failed to inform the Court of 

disbarment from a state supreme court within the ten-day notice period required by A&P Rule 

4(c). [18-8001].

4. The Court imposed reciprocal discipline on an attorney who self-reported that a state supreme 

court suspended the attorney from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. [18-

8002].

5. The Court imposed reciprocal discipline and noted that the attorney failed to inform the Court of 

the attorney’s suspension from a state supreme court for two years. The Court also ordered that 

the suspended attorney must file a motion for reinstatement to be reinstated to the Court’s bar, 

including an explanation of the attorney’s failure to (1) notify the Court of the suspension and (2) 

reply to the Court’s show cause order. [18-8003].

6. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney omitted 135.31 hours of work performed by law 

students when submitting to the Court an application for attorney’s fees. The Court did not 

impose discipline because there was no evidence that the attorney made false fact statements or 

requested unreasonable fees. [19-8001].

7. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney failed to obtain a client’s consent or 

authorization before withdrawing the client’s appeal. The Court also reviewed allegations that 

the attorney ignored communications from the client regarding the withdrawal. The Court did not 

impose discipline because there was no evidence to show that the attorney committed 

professional misconduct. [20-8001A].

8. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney (1) failed to reply to a Court order to submit a 

copy of a retainer agreement, (2) failed to reply to an order requesting an appellant to clarify 

whether the appellant would prosecute an appeal pro se (resulting in a dismissal of the case), (3) 

failed to file a brief within 30 days of a Rule 33 staff conference, and (4) failed to reply to various 

show cause orders. In a public order, the Court suspended this attorney for 90 days, ordered 

the attorney to complete at least 6 hours of ethics CLE, and ordered the attorney to file a 

motion for reinstatement upon seeking reinstatement to the Court’s bar. Subsequently, the 

attorney's state bar suspended him for 90 days, ordered attendance at ethics training, and 

imposed reimbursement of the bar's costs. [20-8002A].

9. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney (1) failed to file a brief on behalf of an appellant, 

(2) filed a brief with missing signatures, incorrect page numbering, and a missing table of 
3

authorities, (3) failed to cite a single case in a brief, and (4) repeatedly failed to sufficiently 

support arguments in the attorney’s briefs by citing to legal authorities. The Court ordered that 

the attorney be publicly reprimanded, serve a six-month probationary period, be required to 

complete 12 hours CLE, and continue a mentorship relationship with an experienced 

veterans law attorney during the probationary period. [20-8003A].

10. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney (1) failed to reply to a show cause order for why 

an appeal should not be dismissed for failure to pay a filing fee, (2) failed to reply to an order 

directing the attorney to file a brief and motion to file the brief late, (3) filed a non-compliant 

motion for leave to file a brief out of time, (4) failed to timely file a Rule 33 statement of issues, 

and (5) filed two non-compliant motions to extend a briefing schedule. The Court ordered that the 

attorney be privately admonished, be required to complete at least 12 hours of CLE on 

professional responsibility, and serve a two-year probationary period. [20-8004A].

11. The Court imposed reciprocal discipline on an attorney who self-reported that a state supreme

court suspended the attorney from practice for a period of 120 days. The Court also 

reciprocally ordered that the attorney complete six hours of ethics CLE and must file a motion 

for reinstatement upon seeking reinstatement to the Court’s bar. [20-8005A].

12. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney misrepresented to the Court the extent of a RO 

examination order and made various erroneous assertions to the Court. The Court did not 

impose discipline because there was no evidence to show that the attorney committed 

professional misconduct. [20-8006A].

13. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney never advised the client of the consequences of 

withdrawing the client’s motion for reconsideration before the Board of Veterans Appeals in 

favor of prosecuting the client’s appeal at the Court. The Court did not impose discipline

because there was no evidence to show that the attorney committed professional misconduct. [21-

8001A].

14. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney committed professional misconduct by pursuing 

a veteran’s benefit claim with the Court despite knowing that the veteran was deceased. The 

Court did not impose discipline because the grievance was unfounded. [21-8003A].

15. The Court reviewed allegations that an attorney (1) failed to discover missing information in an 

incomplete record, (2) failed to adequately review the complete record, and (3) generally waited 

until the ‘last minute’ before submitting documents to the Court. The Court did not impose 

discipline because there was no evidence to show that the attorney committed professional 

misconduct. [21-8004A].