Supreme Court

In the Matter of William F. Holt

. No. 20 17

- 170

- M

. P

.

O R D E R On November 24, 2014, this Court entered an o rder suspending the petitioner, William F. Holt, from the practice of law in this s tate 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 pr oceedi ngs 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 reinsta tement 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 o r 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 inte grity and standing of the Bar or the administration of justice nor subversive of the public interest. ”

1This Court’s Disciplinary Counsel has conducted an investigation to determine whether the petitioner satisfied the requirements for reinstatement, and submitted his report to th e 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 C ourt at its conference on September 21, 2017. The petitioner appeared, with counsel. Having heard the representations of the petitioner, his counsel, and D isciplinary C ounsel, and having
reviewed the many letters of support submitted to this Court by act ively practicing attorneys in this s tate 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 pr acticed law in this s tate 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 f or 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 u s 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 Is land Judiciary, preclude the same type of misconduct from occurring in the future.

2Accordingly, we hereby grant the petition for reinstatement, subject to the following conditions:
1. Attorney Stephen G. Linder shall monitor the petitioner’s practice o f law for a period of two years;
2. Attorney Linder shall submit written reports on a quarterly basis to Disciplinary Counsel regarding his revi ew 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 20 th d ay of October, 2017.

By Order,

______________ /s/

__________________ Clerk

3STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

SUPREME COURT

– CLERK’S OFFICE
ORDER COVER SHEET

Title of Case In the Matter of William F. Holt.
Case Number No. 2017

- 170

- M.P.

Date Order Filed October 20 , 2017

Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg , Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. Source of Appeal N/A

– Court Order

Judicial Officer From Lower Court N /A

– Court Order

Attorney(s) on Appeal For Petitioner: Robert B. Jacquard, Esq

. For Respondent: David D. Curtin, Esq. Chief Disciplinary Counsel

SU

- CMS

- 02B (revised November 2016)