Vt. R. Prof. Cond. 8.1
An applicant for admission to the bar, or a lawyer in connection with a bar admission application or in connection with a disciplinary matter, shall not:
Vt. R. Prof. Cond. 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. 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.
[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.
V.R.P.C. 8.1 has been amended to conform to the changes in the comment to the Model Rule. There were no changes in the Model Rule text. The ABA Reporter's Explanation of the comment changes is as follows:
[1] These changes clarify that there is a duty to supplement an answer later found to be wrong. The point might already be comprehended within the black letter "correct a misapprehension known by the person to have arisen in the matter," but, to make the point clear, the new language has been added and paragraph (b) is cited as the source of the obligation. No change in substance is intended.
[3] This change reminds lawyers that bar admission and professional discipline are judicial proceedings subject to the requirements of Rules 1.6 and 3.3. Although Rule 1.6 does not require a lawyer to come forward with adverse evidence, in a limited number of cases, the requirements of Rule 3.3 may do so. No change in substance is intended.