## Facts

- Lorraine A. Chappell, a Colorado lawyer admitted in 1977, represented a wife in a dissolution and child-custody dispute.
- Temporary orders granted the wife custody of the couple’s young son and imposed a mutual restraining order barring either parent from removing the child from Colorado.
- A court-appointed custody evaluator advised Chappell and the client that she would recommend awarding the husband sole custody of the son and the unborn child.
- Chappell advised the client that, although staying was best legally, “as a mother” she should “run,” and she discussed an “underground” network of safehouses.
- Chappell helped the client liquidate accounts and arrange storage for possessions; the client left Colorado with the child in violation of the restraining order.
- Chappell appeared at a temporary-orders hearing without the client, opposed changing interim orders, and invoked attorney-client privilege when asked about the client’s whereabouts.
- At Chappell’s request, the husband’s support payments were routed through the court registry while the court was unaware the wife had fled with the child.
- Later proceedings established that Chappell knew the client had left the state; the trial court found Chappell had perpetrated a fraud on the court by concealing the flight and facilitating continued support payments.
- The wife later returned and pleaded guilty to felony violation of a custody order.
- In the disciplinary case, Chappell failed to answer the complaint; default entered and allegations were deemed admitted under Colorado procedure.
- A hearing board found multiple violations and recommended disbarment; a hearing panel approved the recommendation.
- Chappell had prior discipline, including a prior suspension for neglect and misrepresentation.

## Issues

1. Whether Chappell violated professional-conduct rules by counseling or assisting a client’s criminal or fraudulent conduct in connection with violating custody-related court orders.
2. Whether Chappell’s conduct toward the court, including concealment of the client’s whereabouts and actions surrounding support payments, constituted dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and breached duties of candor.
3. Whether, considering the admitted misconduct and prior discipline, the appropriate sanction was disbarment.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the hearing panel’s findings and recommendation.
- The court ordered Chappell disbarred.
- The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as admitted due to default and focused on the sanction.
- The court found the misconduct intentional and serious, aggravated by prior discipline and lack of participation, and concluded disbarment was required to protect the public and the courts.

## Legal Principles

- A lawyer may not counsel, encourage, or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, including violating court orders in pending custody proceedings.
- Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, including actions that mislead a tribunal or constitute fraud on the court, warrants severe professional discipline.
- A lawyer’s duty of candor to the tribunal is incompatible with affirmative concealment or manipulation of proceedings to obtain judicial action based on a materially false picture.
- In attorney-discipline matters, default can result in allegations being deemed admitted, limiting the case to sanction assessment.
- Prior discipline for similar misconduct and failure to participate in the disciplinary process are aggravating factors supporting disbarment.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court disbarred Chappell for intentionally assisting a client’s unlawful flight in a custody case and for deceiving the court during related proceedings; her prior discipline and default in the disciplinary case supported the most severe sanction to protect the public and the integrity of the legal system.


People v. Chappell, 927 P.2d 829 (Colo. 1996) (en banc)