The tribunal found Holland's conduct "fell so short of basic standards and the qualities of integrity expected" of the law profession that the "public could have no confidence in her ability to perform".
In the tribunal's estimation, at least $415,000 was advanced to herself and her sister, with Holland's share being between $200,000 and $285,000.
Holland is the youngest of three siblings and as the only lawyer, was a co-trustee of her father's estate.
When he died in 2001 she was nominated attorney under her mother's enduring power of attorney for property and personal care.
Holland's mother died in September 2013 and she was aware that she and her two siblings were the executors, trustees, and equal beneficiaries under her mother's will.
Despite taking control of estate matters, her mother's will was never given to the tribunal during the hearing. Her brother - an overseas-based medical specialist - had never seen it.
Holland filed documents suggesting a variety of defences, including a denial that a lawyer could be liable for conduct outside the provision of regulated services; the allegations were a family issue so it was inappropriate for Law Society intervention; and that she owed no fiduciary duties to her siblings.
However, when before the tribunal she changed her stance and said her brother had told her he did not expect to receive any share in his father's estate, that he had stolen a significant part of her records, and that her conduct fell short of the threshold.
In his latest decision, Judge Adams said he found her excuse about her brother "bizarre".
He said the tribunal's misconduct decision concerned past conduct, but the penalty looked forward.
"We must consider whether we assess her as fit to practice in the foreseeable future.
"As counsel agree, at stake is whether we should strike her off or suspend her for a substantial period.
"Strike-off is the most severe response available to us. It is only available if we are unanimous."
Judge Adams said while he didn't criticise Holland for "having vigorously defended the charge", her defensive strategy indicated "a lack of rationality".
Her argument that she owed no fiduciary duties to the residuary beneficiaries of the estates she was administering "had an air of unreality about it".
"Her claim that the complainant had stolen relevant portions of the records was
unconvincing and bizarre. These features trouble us in our assessment of her fitness to practice law.
"Her ongoing failure to account at all is an aggravating feature but we have looked for, and find, no credible signs of remorse.
"In fact, she has shown us no indication that she understands what she has done wrong. Absent insight, remorse is unlikely. She has not apologised to those she has wronged and, at the risk of repetition, taken no step towards setting the record straight by providing information."
What concerned the tribunal more was how her misconduct exhibited a lack of trustworthiness the public expect in lawyers.
Judge Adams said they wanted to find a path to bring Holland back to safe practice but "have been unable to do so".
"In part, that is because of her lack of insight and remorse which are relevant features in our assessment of her fitness to practice."
Her wellbeing had also deteriorated "markedly" over the past four years.
"We cannot find a sound basis emerging upon which we can predict that she will be fit and proper to practice at any foreseeable time in the future."
As Holland was represented by Legal Aid counsel, no order for costs was made.
