Annotation Annotator’s note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this rule. Disbarment from practice in another jurisdiction warrants disbarment in this state. People v. Payne, 738 P.2d 374 (Colo. 1987); People v. Montano, 744 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1987); People v. Kochel, 764 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1988); People v. Brunn, 764 P.2d 1165 (Colo. 1988); People v. Sousa, 943 P.2d 448 (Colo. 1997). Public censure was appropriate discipline in this state for attorney who received public reprimand in Texas. People v. Campbell, 932 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1997). Public censure was appropriate discipline for attorney who had been reprimanded in Connecticut for failure to file federal income tax return. People v. Perkell, 969 P.2d 703 (Colo. 1998). Three-year suspension was appropriate discipline for attorney who had received an indefinite suspension in Massachusetts. People v. Gargano, 306 P.3d 109 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2013 ). Disbarment from practice in federal court violates this rule and warrants discipline. People v. Awenius, 653 P.2d 740 (Colo. 1982). Suspension from practice in tax court is a determination of misconduct in another jurisdiction constituting grounds for discipline under these rules. People v. Hartman, 744 P.2d 482 (Colo. 1987). Suspension from United States district court pursuant to a plea agreement in that court is a determination of misconduct in another jurisdiction and is grounds for suspension under these rules. People v. Gilson, 780 P.2d 1088 (Colo. 1989). Imposition of same discipline as another jurisdiction. This rule calls for imposition of the same discipline as that imposed in another jurisdiction unless one of four listed exceptions has been established. People v. Gilson, 780 P.2d 1088 (Colo. 1989); People v. Breingan, 820 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1991); People v. Mattox, 862 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1993); People v. Bengert, 885 P.2d 241 (Colo. 1994); People v. Calder, 897 P.2d 831 (Colo. 1995); People v. Cohan, 913 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1996); People v. Campbell, 932 P.2d 312 (Colo. 1997); People v. Rodriguez, 937 P.2d 1210 (Colo. 1997); People v. Harper, 294 P.3d 161 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012 ); People v. Gargano, 306 P.3d 109 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2013 ). Where the thrust of the respondent’s defense was that the proof upon which the foreign state’s findings of misconduct were based was infirm, and a determination in the respondent’s favor would require the hearing board to reweigh the credibility of the witnesses at the out-of-state hearing, board acted properly in declining to do so. People v. Calder, 897 P.2d 831 (Colo. 1995); People v. Gargano, 306 P.3d 109 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2013 ). Where the thrust of the respondent’s defense was that the proof upon which the tenth circuit court of appeals based its finding of misconduct was impermissibly infirm, and a determination in the respondent’s favor would require the disciplinary panel to revisit issues that had been conclusively determined in a prior proceeding, the panel acted properly in declining to do so. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997); People v. Gargano, 306 P.3d 109 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2013 ). Although infirmity of proof is a basis on which to challenge disciplinary action by a foreign jurisdiction, it does not apply to the findings and recommendations of a hearing board and the supreme court grievance committee panel. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). A respondent attorney is entitled to due process in disciplinary proceedings, although there is no requirement that the lawyer be afforded the same constitutional safeguards as those granted a defendant in a criminal trial. People v. Gargano, 306 P.3d 109 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2013 ). Multiple due-process challenges to procedure followed by federal appeals court were rejected in People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). Respondent was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether motions he had filed in a prior case were frivolous. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). Sixth amendment rights to jury trial and speedy trial do not attach in discipline cases, since by its terms the sixth amendment only applies in criminal cases. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). Fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not operate to preclude respondent from being compelled to attend his own deposition. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). Nine-month period of suspension recommended by the board and accepted by the hearing panel was not more severe than the indefinite suspension imposed by the tenth circuit court of appeals, hence respondent could not challenge suspension on this basis. People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). No due-process violation where presiding officer of the board also served on the hearing panel that reviews the board’s action. People v. Fitzgibbons, 909 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1996); People v. Smith, 937 P.2d 724 (Colo. 1997). Failure to report suspension from the practice of law and felony conviction in another state justifies disbarment. People v. Hedicke, 785 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1990). Failure to disclose prior discipline in Kentucky, Colorado, and U.S. district court for district of Colorado to the U.S. district court for the district of Nevada warranted suspension from the practice of law for one year. People v. Mattox, 862 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1993). Virginia disciplinary proceedings provided defendant with due process. Imposition of same discipline, in this case, disbarment, in Colorado customary. People v. Williams, 892 P.2d 885 (Colo. 1995). Discipline in foreign jurisdiction for sharing legal fees and forming a partnership with a nonlawyer and for failing to deposit client funds in required interest-bearing account was suspension for two years, with the period of suspension stayed, and three years of probation on condition that the respondent be actually suspended for six months. Colorado law does not provide for the conditional suspension of a period of suspension or for probation, but a period of suspension of one year and one day ensures that the respondent has complied with the conditions of the foreign state suspension. People v. Bengert, 885 P.2d 241 (Colo. 1994). Attorney received suspension for charging excessive fee in another state. The action taken in the other state had resulted in the attorney’s receipt of a one-year conditional suspension. Usually the court will impose the same discipline as that which was imposed in the foreign jurisdiction, but because Colorado does not provide for conditional suspensions public censure was deemed appropriate. People v. Nash, 873 P.2d 764 (Colo. 1994). Applied in People v. Swope, 621 P.2d 321 (Colo. 1981); People v. Miller, 744 P.2d 489 (Colo. 1987); People v. Trevino, 803 P.2d 473 (Colo. 1990); People v. Lenihan, 286 P.3d 1110 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2012 ).