Supreme Court

In the Matter of William F. Holt. No. 2017-170-M.P.

O R D E R

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.

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)