Supreme Court Seal
Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
Judicial Department
24708 - In the Matter of Robert Holt

Davis Adv. Sh. No. 30
S.E. 2d


In The Supreme Court

In the Matter of Robert

Holt, Respondent.

Opinion No. 24708

Submitted October 13, 1997 - Filed October 27, 1997


Robert Holt, of Houston, Texas, pro se.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon and Senior

Assistant Attorney General James G. Bogle, Jr., all of

Columbia, for the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel,

PER CURIAM: In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent

and Disciplinary Counsel have entered into an agreement under Rule 21, RLDE,

Rule 413, SCACR. In this agreement, respondent admits misconduct and

consents to be disbarred from the practice of law. We accept the agreement.1

Respondent entered into a plea agreement with the United States

Attorney whereby respondent agreed to plead guilty to one count of knowingly

and willfully executing a scheme and artifice to obtain the monies, funds,

credits, assets, securities, or other property of a financial institution whose

deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, by means

of false and fraudulent pretenses in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1344 (1994). In

exchange for the plea, the United States Attorney agreed not to prosecute

respondent for any similar offenses commiitted in the District of South Carolina

prior to September 22, 1994. Respondent pled guilty pursuant to the plea

agreement and was sentenced to probation for five years.

By his conduct, respondent has violated Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of

Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR, by engaging in conduct involving

1Respondent was previously indefinitely suspended on unrelated

misconduct and has not been reinstated to the practice of law. In re Holt, 317

S.C. 48, 451 S.E.2d 884 (1994).

p. 22


dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. This is a ground for discipline

under Rule 7(a)(1), RLDE. Additionally, bank fraud, as defined by 18 U.S.C.A. §

1344, is a serious crime as defined by Rule 2(z), RLDE, and is therefore

misconduct and a ground for discipline under Rule 7(a)(4), RLDE.

In our opinion, respondent's misconduct warrants disbarment from

the practice of law. Accordingly, respondent is disbarred, effective on the date of

this opinion. Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file

an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30,



p. 23