Thomas v. Derwinski — Non-attorney representation requires special relationship, no fee, and special circumstances

The appellant moved to allow a non-attorney, David L. Howard, to represent him before the Court under then-Rule 46(c). The motion asserted that Howard had represented Thomas in prior administrative matters and was familiar with the case, but Howard later confirmed that he was not an attorney, had no law degree, was not affiliated with a recognized veterans service organization, and was charging a fee. The Court denied the motion and used the opportunity to interpret Rule 46(c). It held that the phrase “good cause” means more than prior familiarity or convenience. For a non-attorney, good cause requires a special relationship other than a contractual one, no fee for the services, and special circumstances that limit the appellant’s ability to proceed pro se. Applying that rule, the Court found the showing insufficient and required Thomas to proceed either pro se or with proper representation.

Under Rule 46(c), non-attorney representation in a particular case requires a showing of good cause consisting of a special relationship other than a contract, no fee for the representation, and special circumstances limiting the appellant’s ability to proceed pro se.

A paid non-lawyer helper cannot appear in the Court of Veterans Appeals simply because he knows the case well. The motion must fit the court’s narrow good-cause standard for non-attorney appearances.

This is an early, foundational decision on who may represent veterans before the appellate court. It protects the integrity of the court’s representation rules and helps practitioners distinguish authorized representation from informal assistance.

A veteran asks a longtime friend who previously helped with VA paperwork to appear in the appeal and accept payment for the work. Under Thomas, that request should be denied absent the required special relationship, no-fee arrangement, and special circumstances preventing self-representation.

Use Thomas when opposing motions by unauthorized paid representatives or when evaluating whether a family member or other non-attorney can appear in a particular appellate case. It is also useful for explaining why familiarity with the file alone is insufficient.

Mokal v. Derwinski