People v. Chappell
927 P.2d 829 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lawyer shall not counsel or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent; doing so, especially by actively aiding a client to violate a court's custody order and deceiving the tribunal, constitutes professional misconduct warranting disbarment.
Facts:
- Lorraine A. Chappell represented a wife in a marriage dissolution proceeding.
- A court-appointed custody evaluator, Dr. Jean LaCrosse, advised Chappell and her client that she would recommend the husband be granted sole custody of the couple's son and unborn daughter.
- Following this meeting, Chappell advised her client, "as a mother to run," informed her of a network of safehouses, and assisted her in liquidating assets and emptying bank accounts.
- Chappell also arranged for her client's friend to pack the client's belongings from the marital home and place them in a storage unit, for which Chappell kept the key.
- The client fled Colorado with her son, in violation of a mutual restraining order preventing the child's removal from the state.
- The client was subsequently charged with and pleaded guilty to a felony for violating the child custody order.
Procedural Posture:
- A disciplinary complaint was filed against the respondent, Lorraine A. Chappell, with the supreme court grievance committee.
- Chappell failed to answer the complaint, resulting in a default judgment where the factual allegations were deemed admitted.
- A hearing board found the allegations were established by clear and convincing evidence and recommended that Chappell be disbarred.
- A hearing panel of the grievance committee approved the board's findings and recommendation.
- Chappell did not file an exception to the panel's action, bringing the recommendation before the Supreme Court of Colorado for a final order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawyer's conduct of actively assisting a client to violate a child custody order, including helping the client liquidate assets and flee the state with her child, constitute professional misconduct that warrants disbarment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a lawyer's conduct of actively assisting a client to violate a child custody order constitutes professional misconduct warranting disbarment. The respondent violated numerous Rules of Professional Conduct, including R.P.C. 1.2(d) (counseling or assisting a client in criminal or fraudulent conduct), R.P.C. 3.3(a)(2) (failing to disclose a material fact to a tribunal to avoid assisting a criminal act), and R.P.C. 8.4(c) (engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, and deceit). The court found the respondent's conduct egregious, noting she not only advised her client to flee but actively facilitated the crime by helping her liquidate assets and hide belongings. Citing precedent like People v. Bullock, the court emphasized that such intentional interference with the administration of justice requires the most severe sanction. The court also highlighted numerous aggravating factors, including a prior suspension, a dishonest motive, refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing, and the vulnerability of the child victim, while finding no mitigating factors.
Analysis:
This case establishes a firm and unambiguous boundary between zealous advocacy and unlawful complicity. It reinforces the principle that a lawyer's paramount duty is to the legal system and the administration of justice, which supersedes any misguided loyalty to a client's criminal objectives. The decision serves as a stark warning to practitioners that actively facilitating a client's illegal acts, particularly those that defraud the court and harm a vulnerable party, will result in the ultimate professional sanction of disbarment. This precedent solidifies that sympathy for a client's plight is no defense for participating in or enabling criminal conduct.
