In re Friedman
Supreme Court of Illinois
392 N.E.2d 1333 (1979)
- Written by Richard Lavigne, JD
Facts
Friedman was the chief of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office. In two cases, Friedman asked officers to present false testimony to the court and persuaded witnesses not to appear in court in order to dupe defense attorneys into believing that his office was cooperating with bribery attempts. In each case, once the illegal bribery transaction had been consummated, Friedman instructed law enforcement officials to inform the court that they had committed perjury by lying about the appearance of witnesses and to explain the circumstances underlying the perjury. Friedman was ordered to appear before the state’s attorney disciplinary commission. The hearing board of the disciplinary commission found that Friedman had not violated any rules of professional conduct. The administrator of the disciplinary commission petitioned the disciplinary commission’s review board to reconsider the findings of the hearing board. The majority of the review board found that Friedman had violated rules of professional conduct and recommended that he be censured. Friedman appealed the review board’s recommendation to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goldenhersh, J.)
Concurrence (Underwood, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
