Rule 8.1.Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters 
 An applicant for admission or reinstatement to the bar, or a 
 lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection 
 with a disciplinary or reinstatement matter, shall not: 
  
 (a)knowingly make a false statement of material fact; or 
  
 (b)fail to disclose a fact necessary to correct a 
 misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter, or 
 knowingly fail to respond reasonably to a lawful demand for information 
 from an admission or disciplinary authority, except that this rule does 
 not require disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6 or 
 prohibit a good faith challenge to the demand for such information. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSCOMMENT 
 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.  This Rule also requires 
 affirmative clarification of any misunderstanding on the part of the 
 admissions or disciplinary authority of which the person involved 
 becomes aware. 
  
 This Rule is subject to the provisions of the Fifth Amendment of 
 the United States Constitution and corresponding provisions of state 
 constitutions.  A person relying on such a provision 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. 
  
 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. 
  
 COMMITTEE COMMENT 
 The Committee added reinstatement to the scope of proceedings to 
 which this rule is applicable.  The Committee also added language 
 clarifying that the provisions of subparagraph (b) are not intended to 
 prohibit a good faith challenge to requests for information. 
  
  
  
 ANNOTATION 
  
 Annotator's note. 
 Rule 8.1 is similar to 
 DR 1-101 and DR 1-102 as they 
 existed prior to the 1992 repeal and reenactment of the Code of 
 Professional Responsibility. 
 Relevant cases construing 
 DR 1-101 have 
 been included in the annotations to this rule. 
 Cases construing DR 1-102 have been included under Rule 3.1. 
  
 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). 
  
 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). 
  
 Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary 
 rules is sufficient to justify disbarment.  People v. Mannix, 936 P.2d 
 1285 (Colo. 1997).