People v. Chappell

927 P.2d 829 (1996)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

People v. Chappell

Colorado Supreme Court
927 P.2d 829 (1996)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Play video


Attorney Lorraine Chappell (respondent) represented the wife in a divorce involving a minor son and an expected daughter. The court initially granted the wife temporary custody of the son and use of the family home, and a mutual restraining order prohibiting either parent from taking the son out of state. A court-appointed expert was going to recommend that the husband have sole custody of both children, and Chappell advised the wife that the court would probably accept that recommendation. Chappell advised the wife “as her attorney to stay, but as a mother to run.” Chappell told the wife about underground safehouses, helped her empty bank accounts, and coordinated storing her belongings. Chappell appeared at the temporary orders hearing without the wife and argued against a change in interim orders. When the court asked where her client was, Chappell asserted attorney-client privilege. The court ordered an immediate custody change to the husband. However, the husband offered continued support payments, which Chappell requested be paid into the court’s registry. The husband then discovered the wife had moved and filed an emergency motion for custody and pick-up of the son. Chappell testified at subsequent hearings that the wife was out of state and that Chappell had rented the storage facility pursuant to the wife’s request to safeguard her property, then withdrew from the case. The wife and son returned to Colorado after two weeks and lived at a battered women’s shelter. The husband regained custody of the son at a prenatal appointment, and the court granted him custody of the daughter after birth. The court found that Chappell perpetrated a fraud on the court by accepting the husband’s offer to continue paying support when she knew that the wife was “on the run” with the child. The wife testified at the permanent orders hearing that Chappell had told her about “the underground,” how to avoid being caught, and helped her liquidate bank accounts. The wife was subsequently charged with violation of a custody order, a class 5 felony. Chappell did not respond to the ensuing grievance complaint. A default was entered against her, deeming all allegations of fact in the complaint admitted. The board and the hearing panel recommended disbarment.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership