In re Holmes

Summary

The court granted Curtis Holmes's petition for reinstatement after independently reviewing the reinstatement record and concluding that he met his burden under the governing rule. The court held that Holmes's limited statement that he might represent a former client after reinstatement did not constitute unauthorized practice of law because he provided no legal advice or services during his suspension. The court also rejected the argument that Holmes admitted the hearing panel's findings by failing to file exceptions. Holmes was reinstated subject to payment of required fees and completion of continuing legal education requirements.