A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

ANNOTATION Annotator’s note. Rule 3.1 is similar to Rule 3.1 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. The constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances protects appeals from court decisions unless the sham exemption applies. Therefore, an attorney may not be disciplined unless the filing of an appeal is objectively without merit and the attorney subjectively intended an ulterior motive. In re Foster, 253 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2011). Public censure was appropriate where the attorney failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, made frivolous motions, and made a statement with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. People v. Thomas, 925 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1996). A violation of this rule must be proved by clear and convincing evidence in a disciplinary proceeding. Therefore, the fact that a district court had found by a preponderance of the evidence that an attorney had made a frivolous motion did not preclude the hearing board from determining that the attorney had not violated this rule. In re Egbune, 971 P.2d 1065 (Colo. 1999). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Robinson, 853 P.2d 1145 (Colo. 1993); People v. Maynard, 238 P.3d 672 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2009). Cases Decided Under Former DR 1-102. I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION. Law reviews. For article, “Incriminating Evidence: What to do With a Hot Potato”, see 11 Colo. Law. 880 (1982). For article, “The Ethical Obligation to Disclose Attorney Negligence”, see 13 Colo. Law. 232 (1984). For article, “Indemnification or Contribution Among Counsel in Legal Malpractice Actions”, see 14 Colo. Law. 563 (1985). For article, “The Lawyer’s Duty to Report Ethical Violations”, see 18 Colo. Law. 1915 (1989). 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). For formal opinion of the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee on Use of Subpoenas in Civil Proceedings, see 19 Colo. Law. 1556 (1990). For article, “Punishing Ethical Violations: Aggravating and Mitigating Factors”, see 20 Colo. Law. 243 (1991). For article, “Sex, Lawyers and Vilification”, see 21 Colo. Law. 469 (1992). Constitutionality upheld. This rule is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied. People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986). Standards used in determining a constitutional challenge to a statute are used in determining a constitutional challenge to this rule. People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986). Presumption of constitutionality attaches to such enactment, and the burden is on the party challenging an enactment to demonstrate its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986). Since a disciplinary rule is promulgated for the purpose of guiding lawyers in their professional conduct, and is not directed to the public at large, the central consideration in resolving a vagueness challenge should be whether the nature of the proscribed conduct encompassed by the rule is readily understandable to a licensed lawyer. People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986). Attorney’s psychological problems considered as aggravating and mitigating circumstances in arriving at a recommendation for discipline. The presence of psychological problems, however, does not automatically prevent the attorney from assisting in his own defense where evidence is shown to the contrary. People v. Belina, 765 P.2d 121 (Colo. 1988). Attorney’s conduct was so careless or reckless as to constitute sufficient showing of knowledge for violation of subsection (A)(4) of this disciplinary rule. People v. Rader, 822 P.2d 950 (Colo. 1992). In order to find that attorney engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of this disciplinary rule, it must be shown that attorney had culpable mental state greater than simple negligence. People v. Rader, 822 P.2d 950 (Colo. 1992). Failure to respond to inquiries from referral service, to pay consultation charges and forwarding fees to service, and to return case status reports to service constitutes a violation of sections (A)(1), (A)(4), and (A)(6). People v. Taylor, 799 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1990). Attorney’s conduct violated section (A)(4), (A)(5), (A)(6), and DR 2-106(A), where the attorney’s multiple billing practice resulted in the charging or collection of a clearly excessive fee because the compensation claimed bore no rational relationship to the work performed and exceeded the compensation authorized by law. People v. Walker, 832 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1992). Attorney’s conduct violated sections (A)(4) and (A)(5) where the attorney failed to file applications for approval of fees in a bankruptcy case, did not seek court approval of compensation after the bankruptcy petition was filed, and left the state while the case was pending without providing his client means of contacting him. These actions, aggravated by a previous public censure, warranted a 60-day suspension. People v. Mills, 923 P.2d 116 (Colo. 1996). Hearing board should not have found violations of sections (A)(4) and (A)(5) where board absolved attorney of the charges the complaint advised him to defend. By failing to find a violation for the failure to disclose certain payments until ordered to do so, the board should not have proceeded with finding that attorney committed misconduct in not detailing the sources of the disputed income. In re Quiat, 979 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1999). Board erred in concluding that attorney’s representation of individual client with whom he had a business relationship constituted conduct adversely reflecting on attorney’s fitness to practice law. Neither complainant’s expert nor hearing board paid sufficient attention to the specific and unusual facts of the general and limited partnerships’ actual or potential liabilities. The record does not support the board’s findings that an actual conflict existed among the general and limited partners, including the attorney, or that potential for conflict was likely. In re Quiat, 979 P.2d 1029 (Colo. 1999). An attorney’s appearance as counsel of record in numerous court proceedings following an order of suspension constituted a violation of DR 1-102(A)(4). People v. Kargol, 854 P.2d 1267 (Colo. 1993). Attorney’s effort to cause suppression of relevant evidence at driver license revocation proceeding in a manner not authorized by statute or other law constitutes conduct prejudicial to administration of justice and contrary to DR 1-102 (A)(5). People v. Attorney A., 861 P.2d 705 (Colo. 1993). Attorney’s effort to condition settlement of a malpractice claim upon client’s agreement not to file a grievance against him constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of paragraph (A)(5). People v. Moffitt, 801 P.2d 1197 (Colo. 1990). Adopting a conscious scheme to take ownership of homes, collect rents from tenants, make virtually no efforts to sell the homes, and permit foreclosures to occur on which the department of housing and urban development (HUD) would absorb the losses constituted equity skimming in violation of § 18-5-802 and constitutes a violation of sections (A)(4) and (A)(6) for which suspension for one year is appropriate. People v. Phelps, 837 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1992). As officers of the court, lawyers are charged with obedience to the laws of this state and to the laws of the United States, and intentional violation by them of these laws subjects them to the severest discipline. People v. Wilson, 176 Colo. 389, 490 P.2d 954 (1971). The crime with which an attorney is charged is one of serious consequences denoting moral turpitude and he is found guilty of such a crime, he cannot, in good conscience, be permitted to practice law in this state. People v. Wilson, 176 Colo. 389, 490 P.2d 954 (1971). It is unprofessional conduct and dishonorable to deal other than candidly with the facts in drawing affidavits and other documents. People v. Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d 951 (1971). By filing false documents, an attorney perpetrates a fraud upon the court. People v. Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d 951 (1971). Where an attorney receives as a fee from one of his clients stolen property, then even though he does ask the client whether the item was stolen and receives a negative answer from him, he should make further inquiry as to the actual source of the item, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of his obligations as a member of the bar. People v. Zelinger, 179 Colo. 379, 504 P.2d 668 (1972). License to practice law assures public that the lawyer who holds the license will perform basic legal tasks honestly and without undue delay, in accordance with the highest standards of professional conduct. People v. Witt, 200 Colo. 522, 616 P.2d 139 (1980); People v. Dixon, 621 P.2d 322 (Colo. 1981); People v. Kendrick, 646 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1982). An attorney must adhere with dedication to the highest standards of honesty and integrity in order that members of the public are assured that they may deal with attorneys with the knowledge that their matters will be handled with absolute propriety. People v. Golden, 654 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1982). Client has right to expect competency and integrity from lawyer. A client has every right to expect that conduct taken on its behalf will be carried out with that competence and integrity ideally shared by every lawyer who is licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction. Williams v. Burns, 463 F. Supp. 1278 (D. Colo. 1979); People v. Pooley, 774 P.2d 239 (Colo. 1989). Public expects appropriate discipline for misconduct. The public has a right to expect that one who engages in professional misconduct will be disciplined appropriately. People v. Witt 200 Colo. 522, 616 P.2d 139 (1980); People v. Dixon, 621 P.2d 322 (Colo. 1981). Most severe punishment is required when a lawyer disregards his professional obligations and converts his clients’ funds to his own use. People v. Kluver, 199 Colo. 511, 611 P.2d 971 (1980); People v. Kendrick, 646 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1982); People v. Bealmear, 655 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1982). Conversion of client funds is conduct warranting disbarment because it destroys the trust essential to the attorney-client relationship, severely damages the public’s perception of attorneys, and erodes public confidence in our legal system. People v. Radosevich, 783 P.2d 841 (Colo. 1989). Where attorney, as trustee, withdrew $13,100 from the trust without the client-settlor’s knowledge and refused to repay the money when given the opportunity by the client-settlor, attorney’s conduct was sufficient to warrant disbarment. People v. Whitcomb, 819 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1991). Conversion of client funds cannot be tolerated regardless of the apparent fact that the attorney did not use such funds for personal gain but to pay the costs and expenses incident to handling a large practice that included many non-paying clients. People v. Franco, 698 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1985). Fitness to practice law adversely reflected upon by attorney’s business judgment and violations of the code of professional responsibility although his legal competence was not questioned. People v. Franco, 698 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1985). Failure to represent a client also adversely reflects upon an attorney’s fitness to practice law. People v. Coca, 732 P.2d 640 (Colo. 1987). Attorney should never obstruct justice or judicial process. An attorney has a high duty as an officer of the court to never participate in any scheme to obstruct the administration of justice or the judicial process. People v. Kenelly, 648 P.2d 1065 (Colo. 1982); People v. Haase, 781 P.2d 80 (Colo. 1989). 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). Lawyer owes obligation to client to act with diligence in handling his client’s legal work and in his representation of his client in court. People v. Bugg, 200 Colo. 512, 616 P.2d 133 (1980). Failure to take any action on behalf of his client after he was retained and entrusted with work and in making representations to his client which were false, an attorney violates the code of professional responsibility and C.R.C.P. 241.6. People v. Southern, 638 P.2d 787 (Colo. 1982). Fact that attorney informed client that workers’ compensation hearing was cancelled due to attorney’s illness when attorney was actually abandoning practice constituted conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of this rule. People v. Felker, 770 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1989). Fabricating documents to justify conduct breaches attorney’s ethical obligations to his client and to the bar. People v. Yost, 729 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1986). Falsification of an adoption decree with the original intent to use it for a fraudulent purpose is forgery in violation of § 18-5-103 and is a violation of DR 1-102 and DR 7-102 whether of not the attorney who falsified the decree actually used or attempted to use the decree. People v. Marmon, 903 P.2d 651 (Colo. 1995). Absence of contempt finding by trial court concerning attorney’s willful failure to pay child support is a non-dispositive factor to be considered when imposing discipline. People v. Kolenc, 887 P.2d 1024 (Colo. 1994). Trial court’s finding in child support hearing that attorney willfully violated child support order should be accorded collateral estoppel effect before the hearing board as long as court makes finding by clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Kolenc, 887 P.2d 1024 (Colo. 1994). Attorney violated this rule and C.R.P.C. 1.1 when he prepared and filed child support worksheets that failed to properly reflect the new stipulation concerning custody. People v. Davies, 926 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1996). Lawyer may not secretly record any conversation he has with another lawyer or person. People v. Selby, 198 Colo. 386, 606 P.2d 45 (1979). Telephone conversation, which attorney initiated and recorded without the permission of other party to conversation established unethical conduct on attorney’s part. People v. Wallin, 621 P.2d 330 (Colo. 1981). Inherent in the undisclosed use of a recording device is an element of deception, artifice, and trickery which does not comport with the high standards of candor and fairness by which all attorneys are bound. People v. Selby, 198 Colo. 386, 606 P.2d 45 (1979); People v. Smith, 778 P.2d 685 (Colo. 1989). 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). Unfounded assertion of attorney’s lien violates professional code. The assertion of an attorney’s lien in circumstances where the attorney has no statutory or legal foundation for a lien and, in fact, has only an uncertain claim to the fee on which the purported lien is founded violates the code of professional responsibility. People v. Razatos, 636 P.2d 666 (Colo. 1981), appeal dismissed, 455 U.S. 930, 102 S. Ct. 1415, 71 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1982). Willful and knowing failure to make a federal income tax return is an offense involving moral turpitude. People v. Emeson, 638 P.2d 293 (Colo. 1981). Both the charges and the well pleaded complaint are deemed admitted by the entry of a default judgment. People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987). Continued representation of clients with conflicting interests violates this rule and warrants discipline. People v. Awenius, 653 P.2d 740 (Colo. 1982). Attorney’s representation of two estates where the beneficiaries of the estates had conflicting interests and the attorney fails to obtain waivers from the beneficiaries is a violation of this rule. People v. Gebauer, 821 P.2d 782 (Colo. 1991). Attorney violated this rule by lying to grievance committee counsel regarding the return of client’s files. People v. Felker, 770 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1989). Conduct found to violate disciplinary rules. People v. Bugg, 635 P.2d 881 (Colo. 1981); People v. Sachs, 732 P.2d 633 (Colo. 1987); People v. Ross, 810 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1991). Conduct held to violate this rule. People v. Goss, 646 P.2d 334 (Colo. 1982). Applied in People v. Spiegel, 193 Colo. 161, 567 P.2d 353 (1977); People v. Schermerhorn, 193 Colo. 364, 567 P.2d 799 (1977); People v. Pittam, 194 Colo. 104, 572 P.2d 135 (1977); People v. Good, 195 Colo. 177, 576 P.2d 1020 (1978); People v. McMichael, 196 Colo. 128, 586 P.2d 1 (1978); People v. Susman, 196 Colo. 458, 587 P.2d 782 (1978); People v. Harthun, 197 Colo. 1, 593 P.2d 324 (1979); People v. Cameron, 197 Colo. 330, 595 P.2d 677 (1979); People ex rel. Aisenberg v. Young, 198 Colo. 26, 599 P.2d 257 (1979); People v. Pacheco, 198 Colo. 455, 608 P.2d 333 (1979); People ex rel. Gallagher v. Hertz, 198 Colo. 522, 608 P.2d 335 (1979); People ex rel. Silverman v. Anderson, 200 Colo. 76, 612 P.2d 94 (1980); People v. Hilgers, 200 Colo. 211, 612 P.2d 1134 (1980); People v. Lanza, 200 Colo. 241, 613 P.2d 337 (1980); People v. Meldahl, 200 Colo. 332, 615 P.2d 29 (1980); People v. Hurst, 200 Colo. 537, 618 P.2d 1113 (1980); People v. Kendrick, 619 P.2d 65 (Colo. 1980); People v. Gottsegen, 623 P.2d 878 (Colo. 1981); People v. Luxford, 626 P.2d 675 (Colo. 1981); People v. Rotenberg, 635 P.2d 220 (Colo. 1981); People v. Wright, 638 P.2d 251 (Colo. 1981); People v. Kane, 638 P.2d 253 (Colo. 1981); People v. Archuleta, 638 P.2d 255 (Colo. 1981); Law Offices of Bernard D. Morley, P.C. v. MacFarlane, 647 P.2d 1215 (Colo. 1982); People v. Whitcomb, 676 P.2d 11 (Colo. 1983); People v. Tucker, 676 P.2d 680 (Colo. 1983); People v. Bollinger, 681 P.2d 950 (Colo. 1984); People v. Underhill, 683 P.2d 349 (Colo. 1984); People v. Simon, 698 P.2d 228 (Colo. 1985); People v. McDowell, 718 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1986); People v. Smith, 778 P.2d 685 (Colo. 1989). II. DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS. A. Public Censure. Violation of election laws sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Casias, 646 P.2d 391 (Colo. 1982). Bigamy, an offense of moral turpitude, warrants public censure. People v. Tucker, 755 P.2d 452 (Colo. 1988). An attorney’s inaction in response to the grievance committee’s request concerning informal complaint filed, considered with other circumstances, justified public censure. People v. Moore, 681 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1984). Where an attorney repeatedly issued checks from his law office account knowing that they would not be paid by the bank, such conduct, considered with other circumstances, justified public censure. People v. Moore, 681 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1984). Public censure warranted where attorney kept the first lump sum check obtained in settlement as a lump sum payment of his contingency fee and reimbursement of costs even though he knew the settlement might later be reduced by the social security disability award and the client’s union award. People v. Maceau, 910 P.2d 692 (Colo. 1996). Adjudicating, as a judge, the criminal case of a person who is his client in a divorce proceeding warrants public censure because it is the duty of an attorney-judge to promptly disclose conflicts of interest and to disqualify himself without suggestion from anyone. People v. Perrott, 769 P.2d 1075 (Colo. 1989). Conduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice and warranted public censure where, during the course of criminal proceedings, attorney made an offer to the deputy district attorney to dismiss a related civil action if the criminal charges against his client were dismissed. People v. Silvola, 888 P.2d 244 (Colo. 1995). Use of racial epithet by prosecutor in discussing case with defense counsel for two Hispanic defendants constituted a violation of this section warranting public censure. People v. Sharpe, 781 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1989). Neglect of a legal matter ordinarily warranting a letter of admonition by way of reprimand requires imposition of public censure when such conduct is repeated after three letters of admonition. People v. Goodwin, 782 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1989). Public censure was appropriate where an already suspended attorney was the subject of prior discipline for misdemeanor convictions of assault and driving while impaired and where an additional period of suspension would have little, if any, practical effect and would not have afforded a meaningful measure of protection for the public. People v. Flores, 871 P.2d 1182 (Colo. 1994). Evidence sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Hertz, 638 P.2d 794 (Colo. 1982). Public censure was appropriate where lawyer’s actions involving criminal activity did not seriously affect the lawyer’s fitness to practice law and mitigating factors were present in the absence of any aggravating factors. People v. Fahselt, 807 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1991). Public censure was appropriate where multiple representations and neglect caused no actual harm and attorney was cooperative during disciplinary proceedings, had no prior discipline, and was relatively inexperienced at the time the misconduct occurred. People v. Ramseur, 897 P.2d 1391 (Colo. 1995). Threatening to invoke disciplinary proceedings against judge in anticipation of adverse ruling warrants public censure. People v. Tatum, 814 P.2d 388 (Colo. 1991). Failure to timely file a paternity action constitutes neglect of a legal matter that warrants public censure. People v. Good, 790 P.2d 331 (Colo. 1990). Public censure was warranted where attorney made false statements in the course of discovery in cases where the attorney was the plaintiff. Evidence showed that the attorney was suffering from a psychiatric condition at the time, and the assistant disciplinary counsel could not prove that the attorney’s false statements were knowing, but only that they were negligent. People v. Dillings, 880 P.2d 1220 (Colo. 1994). Public censure was appropriate where attorney failed to provide a critical document to opposing counsel after agreeing to do so and failed to reveal relevant information at the time of trial. People v. Wilder, 860 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1993). Failure to inform arbitrators of errors in expert witness’ testimony constituted violation of DR 7-102 warranting public censure because attorney did not disclose that expert had informed attorney of mistakes in writing, and attorney made closing arguments based on uncorrected expert conclusions. People v. Bertagnolli, 861 P.2d 717 (Colo. 1993) (decided under DR 7-102). Public censure was appropriate where attorney’s failure to appear at three hearings violated subsection (A)(5) and, in aggravation, there was a pattern of misconduct. People v. Cabral, 888 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1995). Public censure warranted where attorney engaged in sexual relations with client attorney represented in dissolution of marriage action even though client suffered no actual harm. People v. Zeilinger, 814 P.2d 808 (Colo. 1991). Discharging firearm in direction of spouse while intoxicated, although not a crime involving dishonesty, goes beyond mere negligence and public censure is appropriate. Mitigating factors, although present, were insufficient to warrant making censure private. People v. Senn, 824 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1992). Public censure is appropriate for attorney’s negligence in closing estates in an untimely manner and for representing two estates where the beneficiaries of the estates have conflicting interests and the attorney fails to obtain waivers from the beneficiaries. People v. Gebauer, 821 P.2d 782 (Colo. 1991). Attorney’s unlawful assertion of charging lien against client’s share of estate proceeds following client’s demand for return of property is subject to public censure. People v. Mills, 861 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1993) (decided under DR 1-102 (A)(5)). Public censure is appropriate where lawyer’s predominant mental state was one of negligence and there was an absence of actual harm to the client. People v. Hickox, 889 P.2d 47 (Colo. 1995). Public censure is appropriate if attorney’s course of behavior exhibits a serious error in judgment going beyond simple negligence. People v. Blundell, 901 P.2d 1268 (Colo. 1995). Public censure was appropriate where the attorney failed to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation, made frivolous motions, and made a statement with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge. People v. Thomas, 925 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1996). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Ashley, 796 P.2d 962 (Colo. 1990); People v. Mulvihill, 814 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1991); People v. Smith, 819 P.2d 497 (Colo. 1991); People v. Richardson, 820 P.2d 1120 (Colo. 1991); People v. Dalton, 840 P.2d 351 (Colo. 1992); People v. Vsetecka, 893 P.2d 1309 (Colo. 1995); People v. Wollrab, 909 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1996); People v. Fitzgibbons, 909 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1996); People v. Cohan, 913 P.2d 523 (Colo. 1996). Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify public censure. People v. Bollinger, 648 P.2d 620 (Colo. 1982); People v. Driscoll, 716 P.2d 1086 (Colo. 1986); People v. Mayer, 716 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1986); People v. Carpenter, 731 P.2d 726 (Colo. 1987); People v. Schaiberger, 731 P.2d 728 (Colo. 1987); People v. Horn, 738 P.2d 1186 (Colo. 1987); People v. Stauffer, 745 P.2d 240 (Colo. 1987); People v. Barr, 748 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1988); People v. Dowhan, 759 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1988); People v. Fieman, 778 P.2d 830 (Colo. 1990); People v. Stayton, 798 P.2d 903 (Colo. 1990); People v. Brinn, 801 P.2d 1195 (Colo. 1990); People v. Moffitt, 801 P.2d 1197 (Colo. 1990); People v. Barr, 805 P.2d 440 (Colo. 1991); People v. Shunneson, 814 P.2d 800 (Colo. 1991); People v. Reichman, 819 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991); People v. Gebauer, 821 P.2d 782 (Colo. 1991); People v. Dillings, 880 P.2d 1220 (Colo. 1994); People v. Wollrab, 909 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1996). B. Suspension. Preparing false carbon copies of correspondence to a client and testifying falsely to grievance committee of the supreme court concerning these letters warrants suspension from practice of law for period of at least three years, but not disbarment. People v. Klein, 179 Colo. 408, 500 P.2d 1181 (1972). Suspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court, or that material information is improperly being withheld, takes no remedial action, and causes injury or potential injury to a party to the legal proceeding, or causes an adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding, or when a lawyer knows that he is violating a court order or rule and there is injury or potential injury to a client or a party, or interference or potential interference with a legal proceeding. People v. Walker, 832 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1992). One-year suspension warranted where attorney failed to promptly respond to discovery requests, failed to inform client of case progress after custody hearing, failed to withdraw upon client’s request, failed to advise client of child support modification hearing, misrepresented to the court that he was unable to contact client, and had been previously suspended for similar misconduct. People v. Regan, 871 P.2d 1184 (Colo. 1994). Fraud, jury tampering, and excessive fees are basis for indefinite suspension. People v. Radinsky, 176 Colo. 357, 490 P.2d 951 (1971). Attorney suspended for three years for repeated neglect and delay in handling legal matters, failure to comply with the directions contained in a letter of admonition, failure to answer letter of complaint from the grievance committee, and conviction of a misdemeanor. People v. Hebenstreit, 764 P.2d 51 (Colo. 1988). By commingling trust funds with his own, failing to maintain complete records of his client’s funds, and failure to render appropriate accounts to his client, the attorney’s conduct adversely reflected on his fitness to practice law, justifying suspension from practice. People v. Wright, 698 P.2d 1317 (Colo. 1985). For commingling of funds in trust account warranting suspension from practice, see People v. Calvert, 721 P.2d 1189 (Colo. 1986). Recommendation of prosecution without legitimate interest warrants suspension. Where an attorney took advantage of his position of respect and status in a district attorney’s office by repeatedly urging criminal prosecution in matters where his only legitimate professional interest could be in related civil matters, such actions are prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of paragraph (A) (5). People ex rel. Gallagher v. Hertz, 198 Colo. 522, 608 P.2d 335 (1979). Actions taken by attorney contrary to court order violate this rule and justify suspension. People v. Awenius, 653 P.2d 740 (Colo. 1982). Suspension is appropriate discipline given number and severity of instances of misconduct, including pattern of neglect over clients’ affairs over lengthy period and in variety of circumstances and misrepresentation in dissolution case to client who wished to remarry concerning the filing of a dissolution petition. Considering proper mitigating factors such as attorney’s lack of experience, absence of prior discipline, attorney’s willingness to undergo psychiatric evaluation and accept transfer to disability inactive status, suspension without credit for time on disability inactive status is appropriate. People v. Griffin, 764 P.2d 1166 (Colo. 1988). Suspension is appropriate for a lawyer addicted to alcohol and cocaine and who neglected a client’s case resulting in the entry of default judgment, but who entered into an uncompelled restitution agreement and successfully completed substance abuse treatment. People v. Richtsmeier, 802 P.2d 471 (Colo. 1990). Attorney misconduct of neglecting a guardianship matter and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice warrant 90-day suspension when aggravated by history of five prior instances of disciplinary offenses for neglect, pattern of misconduct, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct, vulnerability of victim, and substantial experience in the practice of law. People v. Dolan, 813 P.2d 733 (Colo. 1991). Conduct manifesting gross carelessness in representation of clients is sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Roehl, 655 P.2d 1381 (Colo. 1983); People v. Fahrney, 782 P.2d 743 (Colo. 1989). Attorney’s neglect of dissolution case and misrepresentation to client concerning the filing of dissolution petition was especially egregious in view of client’s desire to remarry. Such conduct in addition to number and severity of other instances of misconduct, taking into account mitigating factors, is sufficient for suspension. People v. Griffin, 764 P.2d 1166 (Colo. 1988). Felony theft held sufficient grounds for suspension. People v. Petrie, 642 P.2d 519 (Colo. 1982). Photocopying another attorney’s securities opinion letter and presenting it as one’s own, refusing to comply with discovery rules and court orders in litigation to which one is a party, and continuously failing to answer grievance complaint without good cause warrants suspension. People v. Spangler, 676 P.2d 674 (Colo. 1983). An attorney’s conduct in borrowing money from his former clients and in failing to record deeds of trust on their behalf to be used as security constitutes professional misconduct and justifies his suspension. People v. Brackett, 667 P.2d 1357 (Colo. 1983). Where attorney engaged in a pattern of neglect, obvious conflict, and caused injury to his clients, suspension is warranted. People v. Belina, 765 P.2d 121 (Colo. 1988). Evidence sufficient to justify suspension from the practice of law. People v. Belfor, 197 Colo. 223, 591 P.2d 585 (1979); People v. Stineman, 716 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986). Both the charges and the well pleaded complaint are deemed admitted by the entry of a default judgment. People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987); People v. McMahill, 782 P.2d 336 (Colo. 1988). Suspended attorney must demonstrate rehabilitation for readmittance to bar. Actions of a suspended attorney who took part in a complex real estate transaction and engaged in the practice of law by representing, counseling, advising, and assisting a former client warranted suspension until he demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that (1) he has been rehabilitated; (2) he has complied with and will continue to comply with all applicable disciplinary orders and rules; and (3) he is competent and fit to practice law. People v. Belfor, 200 Colo. 44, 611 P.2d 979 (1980). Where a practicing attorney breached fiduciary duties to his client in misrepresenting his dealings and in handling of funds given to him in trust, his conduct warranted disbarment, and before he may seek readmittance to the state bar association, he must first demonstrate to the grievance committee that rehabilitation has occurred and that he is entitled to a new start. People ex rel. Buckley v. Beck, 199 Colo. 482, 610 P.2d 1069 (Colo. 1980). Attorney’s payment to inmates for referrals to attorney for the provision of legal services justifies 60-day suspension. People v. Shipp, 793 P.2d 574 (Colo. 1990); People v. Whitaker, 814 P.2d 812 (Colo. 1991). Three-month suspension appropriate where attorney intentionally misrepresented that he possessed automobile insurance coverage to automobile accident victim, police officer, and grievance committee investigator, and where attorney was previously publicly censured for engaging in lengthy delay tactics. People v. Dowhan, 814 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1991). Reckless disregard for the propriety of submitting multiple and duplicative billing in court-appointed cases constitutes knowing conduct warranting a 90-day suspension. People v. Walker, 832 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1992). Repeated drawings of checks upon insufficient funds and misuse of trust account moneys constituted grounds for suspension. People v. Lamberson, 802 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1990). Attorney’s failure to file personal state and federal income tax returns and to pay withholding taxes for federal income taxes and FICA, and use of cocaine and marijuana constitute conduct warranting suspension for one year and one day. People v. Holt, 832 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1992). Suspension for one year and one day warranted where attorney misrepresented to client that a trial had been scheduled, that continuances and new trial settings had been made, that a settlement had been reached, and where the attorney’s previous, similar discipline, was a significant aggravating factor. People v. Smith, 888 P.2d 248 (Colo. 1995). Suspension for one year and one day warranted for attorney who “represented” client for a period of 19 months without that person’s knowledge or consent, even asserting a counterclaim on his behalf without talking to him; who did not communicate with him in any manner for an extended period of time and then did not withdraw within a reasonable time after being unable to contact him; and who failed to answer discovery requests, resulting in the entries of default and then a default judgment against him. People v. Silvola, 915 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1996). Suspension for one year and one day is warranted for commingling and misuse of client funds. The hearing board found that the respondent acted recklessly, rather than knowingly, in misappropriating client funds. People v. Zimmermann, 922 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1996). Suspension of one year and one day necessary where lawyer engaged in sexual relationship with client, had been previously disciplined, and submitted false evidence to the hearing board concerning the sexual relationship. People v. Good, 893 P.2d 101 (Colo. 1995). Suspension of one year and one day warranted in light of the seriousness of attorney’s misconduct in conjunction with his noncooperation in the disciplinary proceedings and his substantial experience in the practice of law. People v. Clark, 900 P.2d 129 (Colo. 1995). Suspension for one year and one day warranted where attorney billed for time that was not actually devoted to work contemplated by contract and for time not actually performed. People v. Shields, 905 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1995). Suspension for one year and one day was warranted for attorney who violated this rule and C.R.P.C. 1.1 by preparing and filing child support worksheets that failed to properly reflect the new stipulation concerning custody and where aggravating factors included a previous disciplinary history and failure to appear in the grievance proceedings. People v. Davies, 926 P.2d 572 (Colo. 1996). Mental disability that caused misconduct is a mitigating factor which, when considered in conjunction with other factors, justifies suspension of attorney for conversion of funds that would otherwise warrant disbarment. People v. Lujan, 890 P.2d 109 (Colo. 1995). District attorney’s failure to prosecute personal friend for possession of marijuana violates paragraphs (A)(1), (A)(5), and (A)(6) of this rule and warrants three-year suspension. People v. Larsen, 808 P.2d 1265 (Colo. 1991). Suspension of lawyer for three years, which is the longest possible period for suspension, is appropriate where there was extensive pattern of client neglect and intentional deception in client matters over a period of years. Anything less would be too lenient. People v. Hellewell, 811 P.2d 386 (Colo. 1991). Suspension justified where respondent violated federal and state laws by failing to file personal income tax returns, failing to pay withholding taxes, using cocaine, and using marihuana. People v. Holt, 832 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1992). The fact that no specific client of the respondent was actually harmed by the respondent’s misconduct misses the point in proceeding for suspension of an attorney. While the primary purpose of attorney discipline is the protection of the public and not to mete punishment to the offending lawyer, lawyers are, nonetheless, charged with obedience to the law, and intentional violation of those laws subjects an attorney to the severest discipline. People v. Holt, 832 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1992). Felony convictions warrant suspension for attorney convicted of violating California Tax Code where numerous mitigating factors were found to exist. People v. Mandell, 813 P.2d 732 (Colo. 1991). Three-year suspension appropriate where attorney was convicted for felony distribution of cocaine, but had no record of prior discipline, there was no selfish or dishonest motive associated with crime, and the attorney successfully participated in interim rehabilitation programs. People v. Rhodes, 829 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1992). Failure to communicate with clients, court, and opposing counsel, misrepresentation of the status of the proceedings to client, and failure to investigate clients’ case justifies three-year suspension. People v. Wilson, 814 P.2d 791 (Colo. 1991). Abusive, insulting, and unprofessional conduct towards deponent and opposing counsel during deposition and repeated instances of using health as an excuse for continuances when respondent was ill-prepared for trial warrants six-month suspension. People v. Genchi, 824 P.2d 815 (Colo. 1992). Adopting a conscious scheme to take ownership of homes, collect rents from tenants, make virtually no efforts to sell the homes, and permit foreclosures to occur on which HUD would absorb the losses constituted equity skimming in violation of § 18-5-802 and constitutes a violation of sections (A)(4) and (A)(6) for which suspension for one year is appropriate. People v. Phelps, 837 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1992). Attorney who employed devices to defraud, made untrue statements of material fact, and engaged in acts which operated as fraud or deceit upon persons in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act violated DR 1-102 (A)(4) and DR 1-102 (A)(6) for which suspension of two years is appropriate, considering mitigating factors. People v. Hanks, 967 P.2d 141 (Colo. 1998). Attorney who conveyed real property to defraud creditors suspended from the practice of law. In mitigation, the attorney had fully cooperated with the board. People v. Koller, 873 P.2d 761 (Colo. 1994). Respondent’s multiple acts of violence are indicative of a dangerous volatility which might well prejudice his ability to effectively represent his client’s interests. Although respondent had taken major steps towards rehabilitation the acts committed were of such gravity as to require a public censure and a three-month suspension. People v. Wallace, 837 P.2d 1223 (Colo. 1992). Third-degree sexual assault of wife adequate basis for one-year and one day suspension. People v. Brailsford, 933 P.2d 592 (Colo. 1997). Suspension for 180 days is warranted based upon conviction of third degree assault charges. People v. Knight, 883 P.2d 1055 (Colo. 1994). Willful nonpayment of child support and failure to pay arrearages after ordered by court to do so are violations of subsections (A)(5) and (A)(6) and constitute adequate basis for six-month suspension. People v. Tucker, 837 P.2d 1225 (Colo. 1992). Where deputy district attorney was convicted of possession of cocaine under federal law, one-year suspension is appropriate due to seriousness of offense and fact that attorney had higher responsibility to the public by virtue of engaging in law enforcement. People v. Robinson, 839 P.2d 4 (Colo. 1992). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Murphy, 778 P.2d 658 (Colo. 1989); People v. Hodge, 782 P.2d 25 (Colo. 1989); People v. Masson, 782 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1989); People v. Chappell, 783 P.2d 838 (Colo. 1989); People v. Moya, 793 P.2d 1154 (Colo. 1990); People v. Creasey, 793 P.2d 1159 (Colo. 1990); People v. Schmad, 793 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1990); People v. Wilbur, 796 P.2d 976 (Colo. 1990); People v. Baptie, 796 P.2d 978 (Colo. 1990); People v. Schubert, 799 P.2d 388 (Colo. 1990); People v. Taylor, 799 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1990); People v. Barber, 799 P.2d 936 (Colo. 1990); People v. Garrett, 802 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1990); People v. Sullivan, 802 P.2d 1091 (Colo. 1990); People v. Rhodes, 803 P.2d 514 (Colo. 1991); People v. Flores, 804 P.2d 192 (Colo. 1991); People v. Crimaldi, 804 P.2d 863 (Colo. 1991); People v. Dunsmoor, 807 P.2d 561 (Colo. 1991); People v. Bennett, 810 P.2d 661 (Colo. 1991); People v. Hall, 810 P.2d 1069 (Colo. 1991); People v. Koeberle, 810 P.2d 1072 (Colo. 1991); People v. Gaimara, 810 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1991); People v. Dash, 811 P.2d 36 (Colo. 1991); People v. Honaker, 814 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1991); People v. Anderson, 817 P.2d 1035 (Colo. 1991); People v. Redman, 819 P.2d 495 (Colo. 1991); People v. Rader, 822 P.2d 950 (Colo. 1992); People v. Hyland, 830 P.2d 1000 (Colo. 1992); People v. Smith, 830 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1992); People v. Driscoll, 830 P.2d 1019 (Colo. 1992); People v. Raubolt, 831 P.2d 462 (Colo. 1992); People v. Regan, 831 P.2d 893 (Colo. 1992); People v. Southern, 832 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1992); People v. Denton, 839 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1992); People v. Hindorff, 860 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1993); People v. Brown, 863 P.2d 288 (Colo. 1993); People v. Cole, 880 P.2d 158 (Colo. 1994); People v. Smith, 880 P.2d 763 (Colo. 1994); People v. Swan, 893 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1995); People v. Davis, 893 P.2d 775 (Colo. 1995); People v. Miller, 913 P.2d 23 (Colo. 1996); People v. Calvert, 915 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1996); People v. Sigley, 917 P.2d 1253 (Colo. 1996); People v. Boyer, 934 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1997). Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify suspension. People v. Yaklich, 646 P.2d 938 (Colo. 1982); People v. Craig, 653 P.2d 1115 (Colo. 1982); People v. Kane, 655 P.2d 390 (Colo. 1982); People v. Vernon, 660 P.2d 879 (Colo. 1982); People v. Pilgrim, 698 P.2d 1322 (Colo. 1985); People v. Convery, 704 P.2d 296 (Colo. 1985); People v. Doolittle, 713 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1985); People v. Foster, 716 P.2d 1069 (Colo. 1986); People v. Coca, 716 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1986); People v. Barnett, 716 P.2d 1076 (Colo. 1986); People v. Fleming, 716 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986); People v. Larson, 716 P.2d 1093 (Colo. 1986); People v. McPhee, 728 P.2d 1292 (Colo. 1986); People v. Yost, 729 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1986); People v. Holmes, 731 P.2d 677 (Colo. 1987); People v. Proffitt, 731 P.2d 1257 (Colo. 1987); People v. May, 745 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1987); People v. Turner, 746 P.2d 49 (Colo. 1987); People v. Susman, 747 P.2d 667 (Colo. 1987); People v. Richards, 748 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1987); People v. Geller, 753 P.2d 235 (Colo. 1988); People v. Convery, 758 P.2d 1338 (Colo. 1988); People v. Lustig, 758 P.2d 1342 (Colo. 1988); People v. Preblud, 764 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1988); People v. Goldberg, 770 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1989); People v. Goens, 770 P.2d 1218 (Colo. 1989); People v. Kaemingk, 770 P.2d 1247, (Colo. 1989); People v. Fahrney, 782 P.2d 743 (Colo. 1989); People v. Bottinelli, 782 P.2d 746 (Colo. 1989); People v. Barnthouse, 775 P.2d 545 (Colo. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1026, 110 S. Ct. 734, 107 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1990); People v. Gregory, 788 P.2d 823 (Colo. 1990); People v. Macy, 789 P.2d 188 (Colo. 1990); People v. Lopez, 796 P.2d 957 (Colo. 1990); People v. Abelman, 804 P.2d 859 (Colo. 1991); People v. Heilbrunn, 814 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1991); People v. Barr, 818 P.2d 761 (Colo. 1991); People v. Nulan, 820 P.2d 111 (Colo. 1991); People v. Dieters, 825 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1992); People v. Larson, 828 P.2d 793 (Colo. 1992); People v. Tisdel, 828 P.2d 795 (Colo. 1992); People v. Rhodes, 829 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1992); People v. Walker, 832 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1992); People v. Koller, 873 P.2d 761 (Colo. 1994); People v. Dickinson, 903 P.2d 1132 (Colo. 1995); People v. Kolbjornsen, 917 P.2d 277 (Colo. 1996); People v. Pierson, 917 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1996). C. Disbarment. Disbarment is discipline for lawyer guilty of crimes of moral turpitude. People v. Wilson, 176 Colo. 389, 490 P.2d 954 (1971). Attorney disbarred for continued pattern of conduct involving neglect and misrepresentation and for failure to cooperate in investigation by grievance committee. People v. Young, 673 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1984); People v. Coca, 732 P.2d 640 (Colo. 1987); People v. Johnston, 759 P.2d 10 (Colo. 1988). Continuing pattern of neglect, including failure to timely file tax returns on behalf of personal representative of estate, failure to file timely notice of alibi, failure to notify opposing counsel, and failure to be adequately prepared for argument, coupled with similar behavior resulting in previous suspension, warrants disbarment. People v. Stewart, 752 P.2d 528 (Colo. 1987). Misappropriation of funds, failure to account, and deceit and fraud in handling the affairs of a client necessitate that an attorney be disbarred. People v. Bealmear, 655 P.2d 402 (Colo. 1982). A lawyer’s knowing misappropriation of funds, whether belonging to a client or third party, warrants disbarment except in the presence of extraordinary factors of mitigation. People v. Lavenhar, 934 P.2d 1355 (Colo. 1997). Lawyer’s encouragement of a client to enter into a business transaction with said lawyer in which the two had differing interests and lawyer’s failure to disclose relevant facts warrant disbarment. People v. Martinez, 739 P.2d 838 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1054, 108 S. Ct. 1003, 98 L. Ed. 2d 970 (1988). Convictions for crimes of theft, theft-receiving, and conspiracy to commit theft are serious, involve moral turpitude, and are grounds for disbarment as opposed to an indefinite suspension. People v. Silvola, 195 Colo. 74, 575 P.2d 413 (1978). Conviction of two counts of sexual assault on a child warrants no less a sanction than disbarment. People v. Grenemyer, 745 P.2d 1027 (Colo. 1987). Disbarment warranted by attorney’s conviction of conspiracy to deliver counterfeited federal reserve notes, serious neglect of several legal matters, unjustified retention of clients’ property, failure to respond to the grievance committee, and previous disciplinary record. People v. Mayer, 752 P.2d 537 (Colo. 1988). False testimony and counselling of such conduct warrant disbarment. When a lawyer counsels his client to testify falsely at a hearing on a bankruptcy petition and the client does so, and the lawyer gives a false answer to a question asked of him by the bankruptcy judge, his misconduct warrants disbarment. People v. McMichael, 199 Colo. 433, 609 P.2d 633 (1980). Misrepresenting the status of a dissolution of marriage action with knowledge of impending remarriage and then forging the purported decree of dissolution is conduct involving moral turpitude deserving of disbarment. People v. Belina, 782 P.2d 26 (Colo. 1989). Where an attorney demonstrates an extreme indifference to the welfare of his clients and the status of their cases and an extreme insensitivity to his professional duties in the face of adverse judgments due to neglect, client complaints, and repeated disciplinary proceedings, disbarment is the appropriate sanction. People v. Wyman, 782 P.2d 339 (Colo. 1989). Abandoning clients sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Sanders, 713 P.2d 837 (Colo. 1985). Abandoning clients without notice, causing them financial losses, and failing to cooperate with grievance committee justified disbarment despite lack of any prior professional misconduct. People v. Lovett, 753 P.2d 205 (Colo. 1988). Abandoning law practice, engaging in multiple acts of misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation grounds for disbarment. People v. Greene, 773 P.2d 528 (Colo. 1989). Converting estate or trust funds for one’s personal use, overcharging for services rendered, neglecting to return inquiries relating to client matters, failing to make candid disclosures to grievance committee, and attempting to conceal wrongdoing during disciplinary proceedings warrants the severe sanction of disbarment. People v. Gerdes, 782 P.2d 2 (Colo. 1989). Use of license to practice law for the purpose of bringing into being an illegal prostitution enterprise renders disbarment the only possible form of discipline. People v. Morley, 725 P.2d 510 (Colo. 1986). Theft of client’s money, misrepresentations, representation of multiple clients with adverse interests, and failure to respond to informal complaints warrants disbarment. People v. Quick, 716 P.2d 1082 (Colo. 1986). Felony theft held sufficient grounds for disbarment in Colorado where respondent was convicted of crime and disbarred in another jurisdiction. Unless the disciplinary proceedings conducted in the foreign jurisdiction involved a denial of due process or other infirmity, or the imposition of the same discipline would result in a grave injustice, or the attorney’s conduct warrants a substantially different discipline, the court is required to impose the same discipline. People v. Bradbury, 772 P.2d 46 (Colo. 1989). Altering authentic dissolution decrees coupled with past attorney misconduct sufficient to warrant disbarment. People v. Blanck, 713 P.2d 832 (Colo. 1985). Continuing to practice while suspended is conduct justifying disbarment. People v. James, 731 P.2d 698 (Colo. 1987). Disbarment in another state warrants disbarment. People v. Montano, 744 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1987); People v. Brunn, 764 P.2d 1165 (Colo. 1988). Attorney’s failure to disclose felony conviction and subsequent disbarment in another state is sufficient for disbarment. People v. Brunn, 764 P.2d 1165 (Colo. 1988). Facts sufficient to justify disbarment of attorney for failure to comply with registration requirements of C.R.C.P. 227, misappropriation of funds, and improper withdrawal from employment. People v. Scudder, 197 Colo. 99, 590 P.2d 493 (1979). A lawyer who enters into a conspiracy to violate the law by importing narcotic drugs for distribution should be disbarred. People v. Unruh, 621 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1980). Where a lawyer’s conduct not only constitutes a violation of the code of professional responsibility, but also involves felonious conduct, clearly and convincingly proven by testimony of sheriff’s officers, the grievance committee is justified in requiring disbarment. People v. Harfmann, 638 P.2d 745 (Colo. 1981). Total disregard of obligation to protect a client’s rights and interests over an extended period of time in conjunction with the violation of a number of disciplinary rules and an extended prior record of discipline requires most severe sanction of disbarment. People v. O’Leary, 783 P.2d 843 (Colo. 1989). Attorney’s continued practice of law while under an order of suspension, with no efforts to wind up the legal practice, and the failure to take action to protect the legal interests of the attorney’s clients, warrants disbarment. People v. Wilson, 832 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1992). Convictions for conspiring to commit fraud against the United States and impeding an officer of a United States court warrant disbarment. People v. Pilgrim, 802 P.2d 1084 (Colo. 1990). Disbarment was the proper remedy where the attorney was afforded multiple opportunities including two suspensions and court ordered rehabilitation and where attorney’s conduct demonstrated (a) neglect of legal matters entrusted to him; (b) misrepresentation to the client and the grievance committee; and (c) a pattern of neglect followed by the respondent that had the potential of causing serious injury to his clients. People v. Susman, 787 P.2d 1119 (Colo. 1990). A lawyer’s continued practice of law while under an order of suspension, with no efforts to wind up the legal practice, and failure to take action to protect the legal interests of the lawyer’s clients, warrants disbarment. People v. Wilson, 832 P.2d 943 (Colo. 1992). Likewise, disbarment was appropriate where attorney removed $5,000 from a client’s trust account, refused to return money upon several requests by the client which ultimately resulted in a suit against the attorney, and the attorney lied about the transaction to the attorney with whom he shared office space. Factors in aggravation included a history of prior discipline, including suspension for conversion of client funds, the dishonest motive of the attorney in removing and not returning the client’s funds, the attorney’s refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct, the vulnerability of the client, and the attorney’s legal experience. Mitigating factors were insufficient for disciplinary action short of disbarment. People v. McGrath, 833 P.2d 731 (Colo. 1992). Disbarment is essentially automatic when a lawyer converts funds or property and there are no significant factors in mitigation. People v. Lujan, 890 P.2d 109 (Colo. 1995). Entering guilty pleas to multiple counts of bank fraud evidences serious criminal conduct warranting disbarment. People v. Vidakovich, 810 P.2d 1071 (Colo. 1991). Payment of restitution required prior to petition for readmission. Where, in proceedings to enforce a debt, attorney fails to pay debt, appear for deposition, produce documents requested by subpoena duces tecum or appear at an examination pursuant to C.R.C.P. 69 and on separate occasions writes insufficient funds checks and fails to comply with requests for investigation, restitution is a proper condition of readmission and is to be made prior to petition for readmission. People v. Koransky, 830 P.2d 490 (Colo. 1992). Where money was accepted for investment plans which were false, fictitious, and fraudulent and the presence of aggravating factors, including substantial experience by attorney, prior disciplinary offenses, dishonest or selfish motive, presence of multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge the wrongful nature of conduct, and an indifference to making restitution, disbarment of attorney for violation of legal ethics was proper. People v. Kramer, 819 P.2d 77 (Colo. 1991). Disbarment appropriate where attorney accepted fees from a number of clients prior to terminating her legal practice, failed to inform her clients of such termination, failed to refund clients’ retainer fees, failed to place clients’ funds in separate account, and gave clients’ files to other lawyers without clients’ consent. People v. Tucker, 904 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1995). Disbarment warranted where attorney was convicted of two separate sexual assaults on a client and a former client and attorney’s previous dishonest conduct was an aggravating factor as well as findings of the attorney’s selfish motive in engaging in the sexual misconduct, the two clients’ vulnerability, the attorney’s more than 20 years practicing law, and the attorney’s failure to acknowledge the wrongful nature of his conduct. People v. Bertagnolli, 922 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1996). Notwithstanding the entry of attorney’s “Alford” plea in sexual assault proceedings, for purpose of disciplinary proceeding, the attorney was held to have actually committed the acts necessary to accomplish third degree sexual assault and therefore the attorney knowingly had sexual contact with a former client and with a current client without either woman’s consent. People v. Bertagnolli, 922 P.2d 935 (Colo. 1996). Disbarment appropriate when attorney engages in conduct prejudicial to client and the administration of justice and neglects numerous legal matters. People v. Theodore, 926 P.2d 1237 (Colo. 1996). Notwithstanding financial stress and serious and costly medical problems, intentional conversion of law firm funds required disbarment. People v. Guyerson, 898 P.2d 1062 (Colo. 1995). Propounding interrogatories to harass parties to a case and falsely accusing judicial officers and others of conspiracy warranted disbarment where respondent had been previously suspended for similar conduct. People v. Bottinelli, 926 P.2d 553 (Colo. 1996). Failure to respond to discovery and motions, failure to attend case management hearing, and failure to inform client of progress of a civil case is grounds for disbarment. People v. Hebenstreit, 823 P.2d 125 (Colo. 1992). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Lyons, 762 P.2d 143 (Colo. 1988); People v. Costello, 781 P.2d 85 (Colo. 1989); People v. Nichols, 976 P.2d 966 (Colo. 1990); People v. Bergmann, 807 P.2d 568 (Colo. 1991); People v. Rhodes, 814 P.2d 787 (Colo. 1991); People v. Vermillion, 814 P.2d 795 (Colo. 1991); People v. Bannister, 814 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1991); People v. Grossenbach, 814 P.2d 810 (Colo. 1991); People v. Ashley, 817 P.2d 965 (Colo. 1991); People v. Rouse, 817 P.2d 967 (Colo. 1991); People v. Calt, 817 P.2d 969 (Colo. 1991); People v. Mulligan, 817 P.2d 1028 (Colo. 1991); People v. Margolin, 820 P.2d 347 (Colo. 1991); People v. Koransky, 824 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1992); People v. Bradley, 825 P.2d 475 (Colo. 1992); People v. Mullison, 829 P.2d 382 (Colo. 1992); People v. Tanquary, 831 P.2d 889 (Colo. 1992); People v. Southern, 832 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1992); People v. McGrath, 833 P.2d 731 (Colo. 1992); People v. Brown, 840 P.2d 348 (Colo. 1992); People v. Walsh, 880 P.2d 766 (Colo. 1994); People v. Tyler, 884 P.2d 694 (Colo. 1994); People v. Kolenc, 887 P.2d 1024 (Colo. 1994); People v. Fritsche, 897 P.2d 805 (Colo. 1995); People v. Sims, 913 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1996); People v. Allbrandt, 913 P.2d 532 (Colo. 1996); People v. McDowell, 942 P.2d 486 (Colo. 1997); People v. Singer, 955 P.2d 1005 (Colo. 1998). Conduct violating this rule sufficient to justify disbarment. People v. Kendrick, 646 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1982); People v. Dwyer, 652 P.2d 1074 (Colo. 1982); People v. Golden, 654 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1982); People v. Buckles, 673 P.2d 1008 (Colo. 1984); People v. Loseke, 698 P.2d 809 (Colo. 1985); People v. Fitzke, 716 P.2d 1065 (Colo. 1986); People v. Rice, 728 P.2d 714 (Colo. 1986); People v. Young, 732 P.2d 1208 (Colo. 1987); People v. Foster, 733 P.2d 687 (Colo. 1987); People v. Franco, 738 P.2d 1174 (Colo. 1987); People v. Quintana, 752 P.2d 1059 (Colo. 1988); People v. Brooks, 753 P.2d 208 (Colo. 1988); People v. Cantor, 753 P.2d 238 (Colo. 1988); People v. Turner, 758 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1988); People v. Danker, 759 P.2d 14 (Colo. 1988); People v. Score, 760 P.2d 1111 (Colo. 1988); People v. Hanneman, 768 P.2d 709 (Colo. 1989); People v. Kengle, 772 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1989); People v. Vernon, 782 P.2d 745 (Colo. 1989); People v. Frank, 782 P.2d 769 (Colo. 1989); People v. Johnston, 782 P.2d 1195 (Colo. 1989); People v. Hedicke, 785 P.2d 918 (Colo. 1990); People v. Dulaney, 785 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1990); People v. Franks, 791 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1990); People v. Gregory, 797 P.2d 42 (Colo. 1990); People v. Broadhurst, 803 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1990); People v. Goens, 803 P.2d 480 (Colo. 1990); People v. Hansen, 814 P.2d 816 (Colo. 1991); People v. Schwartz, 814 P.2d 793 (Colo. 1991); People v. Whitcomb, 819 P.2d 493 (Colo. 1991); People v. Kinkade, 831 P.2d 892 (Colo. 1992); People v. Marmon, 903 P.2d 651 (Colo. 1995); People v. Gilbert, 921 P.2d 48 (Colo. 1996).