IN RE: STEPHEN J. HOLLIDAY
APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT
proceeding arises out of an application for reinstatement to
the practice of law filed by petitioner, Stephen J. Holliday,
a suspended attorney.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2001, petitioner was arrested and charged with driving while
intoxicated ("DWI"), speeding, and improper lane
usage. Ultimately, the DWI charge was dismissed, and
petitioner pleaded guilty to the traffic charges.
September 2001, petitioner vandalized a truck belonging to
his ex-wife's boyfriend while it was parked at his
ex-wife's home. He was arrested and charged with simple
criminal damage to property and violation of a restraining
order. He was also cited for failure to yield to an emergency
vehicle for refusing to stop his car when the police ordered
him to do so.
December 2002, petitioner was arrested and charged with DWI
second offense, hit and run, disobeying a red light, reckless
driving, and failing to maintain proof of insurance. In
February 2005, petitioner pleaded guilty to failing to report
an accident, disobeying a red light, and reckless driving. In
June 2005, the record of petitioner's arrest was
2005, petitioner gave a sworn statement to the Office of
Disciplinary Counsel ("ODC") regarding the three
matters set forth above. In response to the ODC's
questions, petitioner asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination. The ODC insisted that he answer
on the ground that all criminal charges against him had
either been declined or resolved via plea agreement.
Nevertheless, petitioner continued to refuse to answer,
thereby failing to cooperate with the ODC's
above misconduct, we suspended petitioner from the practice
of law for three years. In re: Holliday, 09-0116
(La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 82.
2015, petitioner pleaded no contest to domestic abuse
battery. In May 2016, we accepted a joint petition for
consent discipline filed by petitioner and the ODC and
suspended petitioner from the practice of law for one year.
In re: Holliday, 16-0686 (La. 5/27/16), 193 So.3d
August 2018, petitioner filed an application for
reinstatement with the disciplinary board, alleging he has
complied with the reinstatement criteria set forth in Supreme
Court Rule XIX, § 24(E). The ODC took no position
regarding the application for reinstatement. Accordingly, the
matter was referred for a formal hearing before a hearing
the hearing, the hearing committee recommended that
petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law on a
conditional basis for one year, subject to the following
1. Petitioner shall continue diagnostic monitoring with JLAP
during the one-year probationary period. If his JLAP
diagnostic monitoring agreement terminates by its own terms
during the probationary period, then he shall ...