In the Matter of William F. Holt , 170 A.3d 602 ( 2017 )

Supreme Court
In the Matter of William F. Holt. No. 2017-170-M.P.
ORDER
On November 24, 2014, this Court entered an order suspending the petitioner,
William F. Holt, from the practice of law in this state for three years, with an effective
date of May 1, 2014. In re Holt, 103 A.3d 147 (R.I. 2014). His suspension was based
upon findings by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Board that he had violated multiple
Rules of Professional Conduct in his representation of four clients in proceedings before
the Family Court. As we noted, the petitioner had repeatedly disregarded both procedural
and ethical rules in pursuing a “win at all costs” strategy on behalf of his clients. Id. at
152.
On May 4, 2017, he filed a petition for reinstatement in accordance with Article
III, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Subsection (c) of
Rule 16 provides, in part, that on a petition for reinstatement the petitioner bears the
burden of demonstrating to this Court that he or she “has the moral qualifications,
competency and learning in law required for admission to practice law in this State and
that his or her resumption of the practice of law within the State will be neither
detrimental to the integrity and standing of the Bar or the administration of justice nor
subversive of the public interest.”
1
This Court’s Disciplinary Counsel has conducted an investigation to determine
whether the petitioner satisfied the requirements for reinstatement, and submitted his
report to the Court on September 14, 2017. Counsel has advised that he has not
discovered any information regarding the petitioner’s conduct since the date of his
suspension that would warrant denial of the petition.
We directed the petitioner to appear before the Court at its conference on
September 21, 2017. The petitioner appeared, with counsel. Having heard the
representations of the petitioner, his counsel, and Disciplinary Counsel, and having
reviewed the many letters of support submitted to this Court by actively practicing
attorneys in this state and former clients of the petitioner, as well as correspondence in
opposition thereto, we deem that the petition should be granted.
We note that, prior to his suspension, the petitioner practiced law in this state for
twenty-seven years and had received no disciplinary sanctions. He was, by all accounts,
a capable attorney. Moreover, he was fully cooperative in the disciplinary proceedings
leading to his suspension, and he appears to have accepted responsibility for his
misconduct and to be remorseful for the same.
We are not unmindful of the damage caused to the courts, parties, and the
profession by the petitioner’s past conduct. His lack of veracity in his representations to
judges and opposing counsel gives us pause in reinstating him to the practice of law.
However, he has served his period of suspension without incident. Moreover, the
implementation of the Supreme Court Rules Governing Electronic Filing, now applicable
in all the courts within the Rhode Island Judiciary, preclude the same type of misconduct
from occurring in the future.
2
Accordingly, we hereby grant the petition for reinstatement, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Attorney Stephen G. Linder shall monitor the
petitioner’s practice of law for a period of two years;
2. Attorney Linder shall submit written reports on a
quarterly basis to Disciplinary Counsel regarding his
review of the petitioner’s practice; and,
3. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with Attorney
Linder and Disciplinary Counsel regarding the
monitoring of his practice.
Justice Flaherty did not participate.
Entered as an Order of this Court this 20th day of October, 2017.
By Order,
______________/s/__________________
Clerk
3
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
ORDER COVER SHEET
Title of Case In the Matter of William F. Holt.
No. 2017-170-M.P.
Case Number
October 20, 2017
Date Order Filed
Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
N/A – Court Order
Source of Appeal
N/A – Court Order
Judicial Officer From Lower Court
For Petitioner:
Robert B. Jacquard, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
For Respondent:
David D. Curtin, Esq.
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
SU-CMS-02B (revised November 2016)