Treating a Pending Reinstatement as De Facto Suspension: Public Censure for Lack of Candor in In re Kolb

Introduction

In the Matter of Staci L. Kolb is a Rhode Island Supreme Court attorney disciplinary order addressing an attorney’s lack of candor during a disciplinary investigation and the appropriate sanction for that misconduct. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of a hearing officer (the Honorable Netti C. Vogel, ret.), concluding that the respondent violated Rules 8.1(a) and (b) and 8.4(a) and (c) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct.

The central issues were: (1) whether the respondent’s failure to disclose emails—showing she knew of her obligation to maintain active bar registration—constituted knowing false statements and omissions in a disciplinary matter; and (2) what sanction should follow where lack of candor ordinarily warrants suspension, but the respondent demonstrated sincere remorse, a strong record of client service, and had already endured a prolonged period out of practice while her reinstatement remained pending.

The Court publicly censured the respondent, emphasizing two interconnected principles: the foundational duty of candor to disciplinary authorities and the appropriateness of considering a pending reinstatement period as tantamount to a lengthy suspension when calibrating sanctions in unique circumstances.

Summary of the Opinion

• The Court accepted the hearing officer’s factual findings and legal conclusions that the respondent violated:
  • Rule 8.1(a): knowingly making a false statement of material fact in a disciplinary matter;
  • Rule 8.1(b): failing to disclose facts necessary to correct a misapprehension and failing to respond fully to a lawful demand for information;
  • Rule 8.4(a): violating the Rules of Professional Conduct;
  • Rule 8.4(c): engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation.
• The violations arose from the respondent’s withholding of emails during an earlier disciplinary case that contradicted her assertions about not knowing her bar status and obligations.
• Although lack of candor to disciplinary authorities can justify suspension, the Court—citing unique facts, heartfelt remorse, an unblemished record of client service, and the long period during which reinstatement was pending—imposed a public censure.
• The Court noted this “de facto suspension” (time out of practice pending reinstatement) could be weighed in mitigation when setting sanction.

Analysis

Background and Procedural Posture

The respondent was admitted in 1996 and later left full-time practice (2009 onward). Between 2009 and 2013, she was removed from the master roll multiple times for failing to file annual registration statements and pay the required Supreme Court fees and Rhode Island Bar Association (RIBA) dues, but was reinstated after coming into compliance. She was again removed in 2016 and received eleven notices by email and mail.

Despite the 2016 administrative suspension/removal, the respondent joined a law firm in December 2019 and practiced for approximately two years without reinstatement, and she applied to a staff attorney position at the Rhode Island Supreme Court in 2021 while representing that she was admitted and practicing. When Disciplinary Counsel alerted her in February 2022, she immediately stopped practicing and left the firm.

Disciplinary Counsel first filed a complaint in June 2022 alleging unauthorized practice. The respondent claimed she believed, due to a phone conversation with RIBA in 2019 and pandemic-related assumptions, that her obligations were deferred. That matter ended in a letter of reprimand for Rule 5.5(b)(2) and Rule 8.4(c).

Subsequently, Disciplinary Counsel obtained emails (August and September 2020; and an August 25, 2021 communication containing the Clerk’s notice) indicating the respondent had actual notice of the need to register and pay dues in 2020 and 2021. Disciplinary Counsel then filed the 2023 complaint—the basis of this order—asserting that failing to disclose these emails violated Rules 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c). Both Disciplinary Counsel and the respondent accepted the hearing officer’s decision recommending public censure, and the Supreme Court adopted it.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• In re Glucksman, 333 A.3d 504 (R.I. 2025) (mem.):
  • Reiterates purposes of discipline: protect the public and preserve the integrity of the profession, not to punish the attorney.
  • Supports the Court’s sanction analysis, emphasizing mitigation and aggravation balancing.
• In re McKenna, 110 A.3d 1126, 1148 (R.I. 2015):
  • Recognizes the duty of candor as foundational to the legal profession.
  • Informs the gravity the Court assigns to dishonesty in disciplinary proceedings.
• In re Mosca, 686 A.2d 927 (R.I. 1996):
  • Suspension imposed for trust account violations and, importantly, for egregious conduct once confronted with disciplinary complaints.
  • The Court highlighted an attorney’s affirmative obligation to cooperate with disciplinary authorities and truthfully respond—anchoring how Rule 8.1 is applied.
  • Influences the Court’s view that lack of candor often merits suspension, making Kolb’s censure noteworthy given unique mitigation.
• In re Press, 627 A.2d 842 (R.I. 1993) (mem.):
  • Suspension for false statements on a bar application and “less than candid” testimony—reinforces that misrepresentation in admissions/disciplinary contexts is especially serious.
• In re Levine, 840 A.2d 1098 (R.I. 2003):
  • Public censure for a misrepresentation in a pro hac vice affidavit, with remorse serving as a key mitigating factor.
  • Shows censure can be appropriate for honesty-related violations under certain mitigating circumstances.
• In re Fisher, 175 A.3d 490 (R.I. 2018) (mem.):
  • Public censure despite a pattern of misconduct (forging a client’s signature and notarizing a false signature), owing to an unblemished history and sincere remorse.
  • Underscores that strong mitigation can support censure in non-monetary-harm dishonesty cases.
• In re McAteer, 183 A.3d 1133 (R.I. 2018) (mem.):
  • Public censure following a misrepresentation to the Superior Court, with the Court weighing remorse, reputation, cooperation, and acceptance of responsibility.
  • Reinforces a mitigation pathway for censure in cases without client conversion or financial fraud.
• In re Ricci, 735 A.2d 203 (R.I. 1999); In re Hodge, 676 A.2d 1362 (R.I. 1996); In re Krause, 676 A.2d 1340 (R.I. 1996):
  • Cases involving client-fund conversion and financial fraud typically draw harsher sanctions.
  • The Court distinguishes Kolb’s misconduct (licensing neglect and lack of candor) from conversion/fraud to justify censure.

Legal Reasoning

The hearing officer, and the Court in adopting that decision, found the respondent had actual and constructive notice of her licensing obligations and of the consequences of noncompliance:

• Multiple notices from the Court following the 2016 removal from the master roll;
• Internal firm emails (Aug. 26, 2020; Sept. 8, 2020) showing she knew the 2020 annual registration and dues had to be paid by September 2020;
• An Aug. 25, 2021 email containing the Clerk’s registration notice warning of removal by Sept. 1, 2021 for non-filing.

The respondent’s statements during the 2022 proceeding—that she misunderstood her obligations due to a RIBA conversation and pandemic-related assumptions—were contradicted by those emails. By withholding those communications from the Disciplinary Board in 2022, she:

• Knowingly made false statements of material fact in a disciplinary matter (Rule 8.1(a));
• Failed to disclose facts necessary to correct a known misapprehension (Rule 8.1(b));
• Thereby violated Rule 8.4(a) (violating the Rules) and Rule 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation).

On sanction, the Court emphasized the purpose of discipline (protection and integrity, not punishment) and weighed aggravation and mitigation. Aggravation included a serious failure of candor toward disciplinary authorities, which often leads to suspension (Mosca; Press). Mitigation included:

• Strong, sincere remorse and acceptance of wrongdoing;
• Longstanding, unblemished record of competent, diligent client service (Rules 1.1, 1.3) with no client betrayals or financial gain;
• The respondent’s prolonged inability to practice while her reinstatement application was pending for more than three and a half years—tantamount to a “lengthy suspension.”

Balancing these factors, the Court adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation of public censure, explicitly recognizing that while lack of candor ordinarily points toward suspension, these unique facts justified censure.

The “De Facto Suspension” Mitigating Factor

A key contribution of this order is its express treatment of a prolonged pending reinstatement as mitigation, characterizing it as tantamount to a lengthy suspension. This is significant in Rhode Island sanction jurisprudence because:

• It recognizes that delays in reinstatement—when coupled with cessation of practice—can serve many of the protective and deterrent functions of formal suspension.
• It provides a structured rationale for choosing public censure over suspension in exceptional cases involving candor violations when other strong mitigation is present (remorse, no client harm, prior good standing).

This principle is not a blanket rule; rather, it is fact-specific. The Court explicitly cautions that lack of candor would often support suspension. Here, however, the unique combination of facts—including the de facto suspension—tilted the balance.

Confidentiality and the Intertwined Proceedings

The Court also addressed confidentiality under Article III, Rule 21 of the Supreme Court Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Ordinarily, matters remain confidential until probable cause and formal charges. The Court granted relief from confidentiality to allow public filing without redaction because the 2023 complaint (public) was inextricably intertwined with the 2022 complaint and its disposition (otherwise confidential). This illustrates a pragmatic approach to transparency when proceedings are interdependent.

Employer Verification and Resume Misrepresentation

The record reflects that the respondent:

• Practiced at a private firm from December 2019 to late February/March 2022 without an active Rhode Island license;
• Applied to the Supreme Court for a staff attorney position in November 2021, listing herself as admitted to the Rhode Island bar and as an attorney at the firm, which triggered verification and discovery of her administrative suspension.

Two broader implications follow:

• Employers must verify the bar status of hires and associates rather than relying on representations—an internal compliance practice that could have prevented or curtailed the unauthorized practice period.
• Lawyers have a nondelegable duty to maintain licensure and to avoid misrepresentations in job applications to courts and public employers; such statements can independently trigger Rule 8.4(c) concerns.

Impact

• Sanction Calibration:
  • Rhode Island clarifies that lack of candor typically warrants suspension, but strong mitigation—including a prolonged period out of practice while reinstatement is pending—can justify public censure in unique cases.
  • Candor remains the touchstone; this ruling should not be read as minimizing dishonesty to disciplinary authorities.
• Licensing Vigilance:
  • Removal from the master roll is not a mere formality; it is administrative suspension. Practicing while removed constitutes unauthorized practice (Rule 5.5), and pandemic-related assumptions do not alter the attorney’s obligations.
  • Actual notice can be inferred from official notices and firm communications, undercutting defenses premised on misunderstanding or “clerical errors.”
• Disciplinary Process Integrity:
  • Rule 8.1(a) and (b) violations can be found where respondents withhold internal emails or other documents that contradict mitigation narratives. Omissions in disciplinary responses may be treated as serious as affirmative misstatements.
• Confidentiality Exceptions:
  • Courts may grant relief from Rule 21 confidentiality where new public proceedings are inseparable from prior confidential matters.
• Employer Duty to Verify:
  • Firms should implement periodic checks of attorneys’ licensure status and require prompt proof of registration/dues payment to prevent unauthorized practice exposure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Master Roll:
  • The official list of attorneys authorized to practice in Rhode Island. Removal from the master roll is an administrative suspension; a lawyer cannot practice until reinstated.
• Unauthorized Practice (Rule 5.5):
  • Practicing law without an active license. It includes associating as an attorney in a firm or representing client matters when administratively suspended.
• Rule 8.1 (Candor in Disciplinary Matters):
  • Prohibits knowingly making false statements or failing to correct misapprehensions in bar admission, disciplinary, or CLE matters. Also forbids ignoring lawful information requests from disciplinary authorities.
• Rule 8.4 (Professional Misconduct):
  • Defines professional misconduct, including violating the Rules of Professional Conduct (8.4(a)) and engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (8.4(c)).
• Public Censure vs. Suspension:
  • Public censure is a formal, public reprimand. Suspension removes the attorney’s privilege to practice for a defined period. A long pending-reinstatement period, coupled with actual cessation of practice, can operate as a de facto suspension for mitigation purposes, depending on the case.
• Rule 21 Confidentiality:
  • Disciplinary matters remain confidential until formal public proceedings, but the Court can grant relief to allow public filings where necessary (e.g., intertwined complaints).

Conclusion

In re Kolb reinforces the primacy of candor to disciplinary authorities while articulating a nuanced approach to sanctioning. The Court found clear violations of Rules 8.1(a), 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c) where the respondent withheld emails that undercut her defense in an earlier disciplinary proceeding. Despite acknowledging that lack of candor often warrants suspension, the Court imposed public censure due to compelling mitigation: sincere remorse, an unblemished history of competent and diligent client service, no client harm or personal gain, and a lengthy period out of practice while reinstatement remained pending—treated as tantamount to suspension.

Key takeaways:

• The duty of candor in disciplinary proceedings is foundational; omissions can be as sanctionable as affirmative misstatements.
• Administrative removal from the master roll is serious; practicing while removed is unauthorized practice.
• In exceptional cases, a prolonged pending-reinstatement period may mitigate sanctions, functioning as a de facto suspension.
• Firms must verify licensure; lawyers must not rely on informal or third-party assurances regarding bar status.
• Relief from confidentiality may be granted where interrelated proceedings demand transparency.

By publicly censuring the respondent while recognizing the mitigating force of a de facto suspension, the Court provides a measured roadmap for future sanction determinations in candor cases, without diminishing the overarching imperative of honesty in the disciplinary process.