Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Commission No. 08 CH 32
The Hearing Board found that the Administrator proved all of the misconduct
alleged against Friedman with the exception of the charge that his
misconduct prejudiced the administration of justice. The Hearing Board
recommended that Friedman's license be suspended for three years.
The Review Board determined that Friedman should not be allowed to avoid
a comprehensive evaluation of his character and fitness and recommended
that he be suspended for eighteen months and until further order of the
court.
BEFORE THE REVIEW BOARD
OF THEILLINOIS ATTORNEY
REGISTRATIONAND
D
ISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
No. 6288157.
PAGE 2:
The Hearing Board found that Respondent committed all of the charged
misconduct, except that it did not find any prejudice to the administration of
justice. The Hearing Board recommended that Respondent's license be
suspended for three years.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. They are fully set forth in the Hearing
Board's Report and Recommendation and are briefly summarized as follows.
Respondent attended medical school at the University of Illinois for
approximately one year, until he was dismissed for poor scholarship on
August 30, 1999. Respondent applied to law school at the University of
Chicago in December 1999. Despite the fact that the application requested a
list of all professional schools that Respondent attended and asked whether
he had ever been dismissed or placed on academic probation at any college
or university, Respondent did not disclose that he attended and was
dismissed from medical school. Respondent admitted that he purposely
omitted his medical school attendance information from the application
because he thought it would harm his chances of being accepted to law
school.
Respondent was admitted to the University of Chicago Law School and began
his studies there in August 2000. During his second year of law school,
Respondent submitted his resume and an altered law school transcript to ten
to fifteen law firms as part of his search for a summer associate position.
Respondent's grades during his first year of law school were the equivalent
of eight C's and two B's. However, he altered his transcript so it appeared
that he had received the equivalent of four A's and six B's. In addition to
using the transcript to obtain a
PAGE 3:
The law firm of Sidley Austin LLP (Sidley) offered Respondent a summer
associate position. Respondent had given Sidley his altered transcript as part
of the interview process. Respondent accepted Sidley's offer and worked
there from June 2002 through August 2002. During his employment,
Respondent gave Sidley a second altered transcript containing his second-
year grades, all of which he had changed.
Respondent applied for the New York bar in 2003 and was required to submit
a copy of his law school application to the bar examiners. Respondent sent a
letter to the University of Chicago Law School Dean of Students, Ellen
Cosgrove, stating that he was "very surprised to note that [he] had not
disclosed in the law school application that I had attended the
PAGE 4:
University of Illinois Medical School for one academic year." Respondent was
licensed in New York on January 25, 2006.
Respondent applied for admission to the Illinois bar on December 25, 2005.
In his application, he disclosed his dismissal from medical school and also
disclosed that he had omitted this information from his law school
application. He did not disclose that he had altered his law school transcripts.
PAGE 5:
Respondent acknowledged that he did a "terrible thing" and that his actions
warrant an appropriate sanction.
The Hearing Board determined that Respondent is sincerely remorseful for
his misconduct. Because of this factor, as well as Respondent's positive
character evidence, his lack of prior discipline and his cooperation in the
proceedings, the Hearing Board determined that neither disbarment nor
suspension until further order of the court is necessary and recommended a
three-year suspension.
PAGE 6:
put false information on his resume, provided false information on his bar
application regarding his military service and discharge, and falsely told his
employer that he was involved in a car accident to cover up the fact that he
was interviewing with other law firms. Unlike Respondent, Parker did not
present any mitigating evidence.
Mitan was found to have made nine material misrepresentations on his bar
application. He gave an incorrect birth date and failed to disclose that he had
changed his name, been married and divorced, been involved in several civil
suits, and been arrested three times and convicted of felony fraud. He also
failed to disclose four prior addresses, five prior jobs, his application to
another state's bar, and his attendance at a law school other than the one
from which he received his degree. Mitan, 75 Ill.2d at 122-23, 387 N.E.2d
278.
The supreme court noted that a bar applicant "has a duty to accurately state
matters contained in an application for admission" and determined that
Mitan's responses "present[ed] evidence of a calculated effort by the
respondent to frustrate any meaningful examination and investigation of the
applicant's fitness to practice law." Mitan, 75 Ill.2d at 126, 387 N.E.2d 278.
By concealing his prior conviction, Mitan perpetrated a fraud upon the court
which justified disbarment. Mitan, 75 Ill.2d at 127, 387 N.E.2d 278.
PAGE 7:
Generally, suspensions until further order (UFO) are reserved for cases in
which an attorney must "prove that he or she has remedied a significant
problem before resuming practice" (In re Bilal, 05 CH 87 (Review Board, Sept.
5, 2008) at 22, petition for leave to file exceptions denied, No. M.R. 22687
(Jan. 20, 2009)) or where the evidence indicates that the attorney is unlikely
to adhere to ethical standards in the future (In re Houdek, 113 Ill.2d 323, 497
N.E.2d 1169 (1986)). The supreme court has also imposed suspensions UFO
upon attorneys who have not made full disclosures to the Character and
Fitness Committee.
PAGE 8:
The respondent in Connor failed to disclose on his law school application that
he had previously attended and been dismissed from another law school for
poor scholarship. He also failed to disclose twenty-one prior employers.
Connor omitted this information from his bar application as well and also
omitted an arrest for criminal damage to property. Connor did not participate
in his disciplinary proceedings or appear for his hearing. Connor, 90 CH 117,
Review Board Report at 1-8. The Review Board recommended that Connor be
suspended for 18 months UFO. The supreme court imposed a suspension of
30 months UFO. Connor, No. M.R. 8711 (March 19, 1993).
PAGE 9:
CONCLUSION
Respectfully submitted,