Colo. R. Prof'l. Cond. 8.1
An applicant for admission, readmission, or reinstatement to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with an application for admission, readmission, or reinstatement to the bar or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:
RPC 8.1
COMMENT
[1] The duty imposed by this Rule extends to persons seeking admission to the bar as well as to lawyers. Hence, if a person makes a material false statement in connection with an application for admission, it may be the basis for subsequent disciplinary action if the person is admitted, and in any event may be relevant in a subsequent admission application. The duty imposed by this Rule applies to a lawyer's own admission or discipline as well as that of others. Thus, it is a separate professional offense for a lawyer to knowingly make a misrepresentation or omission in connection with a disciplinary investigation of the lawyer's own conduct. Paragraph (b) of this Rule also requires correction of any prior misstatement in the matter that the applicant or lawyer may have made and affirmative clarification of any misunderstanding on the part of the admissions or disciplinary authority of which the person involved becomes aware.
[2] This Rule is subject to the provisions of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state constitutions. Rule 8.1(b) does not prohibit a good faith challenge to the demand for such information. A person relying on such a provision or challenge in response to a question, however, should do so openly and not use the right of nondisclosure as a justification for failure to comply with this Rule.
[3] A lawyer representing an applicant for admission to the bar, or representing a lawyer who is the subject of a disciplinary inquiry or proceeding, is governed by the rules applicable to the client-lawyer relationship, including Rule 1.6 and, in some cases, Rule 3.3.
ANNOTATION Annotator's note. Rule 8.1 is similar to Rule 8.1 as it existed prior to the 2007 repeal and readoption of the Colorado rules of professional conduct. Relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this rule. Recklessly making a false statement of material fact in a disciplinary matter, in conjunction with violation of other disciplinary rules, sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Porter, 980 P.2d 536 (Colo. 1999). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension. In re Demaray, 8 P.3d 427 (Colo. 1999); People v. Edwards, 201 P.3d 555 (Colo. 2008); People v. Duggan, 282 P.3d 534 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012); People v. Staab, 287 P.3d 122 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Mannix, 936 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1997); People v. Tolentino, 285 P.3d 340 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012). Cases Decided Under Former DR 1-101. Law reviews. For article, "Update on Ethics and Malpractice Avoidance in Family Law -- Part I", see 19 Colo. Law. 465 (1990). For article, "Update on Ethics and Malpractice Avoidance in Family Law -- Part II", see 19 Colo. Law. 647 (1990). Submission of false transcript to obtain admission to law school and to qualify for admission as a member of the bar is a violation of this rule and requires that respondent's admission to the bar be voided. People v. Culpepper, 645 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1982). Failure to disclose a misdemeanor conviction in another state when applying for the bar and subsequent disbarment from the other state constitutes conduct involving fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation prejudicial to the administration of justice. People v. Mattox, 639 P.2d 397 (Colo. 1982). Bar reinstatement requires demonstration of possession of moral and professional qualifications. Where a state attorney had been convicted of failing to file his federal income tax return and making false representations to a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service regarding the filing of income tax returns, and where the attorney was later found to have made a false statement in his application to the Arizona State Bar by answering in the negative an inquiry as to whether he had ever been questioned regarding the violation of any law, he was suspended from the practice of law in Colorado for three years, and was required to demonstrate upon application for reinstatement that he possessed moral and professional qualifications for admission to the bar of this state. People v. Gifford, 199 Colo. 205, 610 P.2d 485 (1980). Public censure appropriate where attorney acted recklessly in failing to disclose prior investigations for alleged criminal conduct on his application to the bar, but where attorney had practiced law in Colorado for five years without any other discipline and had cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings. People v. North, 964 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1998).