BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

 LOREN ELLIOTTE FRIEDMAN,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 6288157.

 

Commission No. 08 CH 32

FILED -  May 6, 2008

COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by her attorney Wendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent Loren Elliotte Friedman, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on May 4, 2006, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

COUNT I
(Misrepresentations on law school application)

1. Between August 1998 and August 30, 1999 Respondent attended medical school at the University of Illinois. On or about August 30, 1999, the University of Illinois College of Medicine notified Respondent that he had been dismissed by the College due to poor scholarship.

2. On or about December 2, 1999, Respondent submitted an application for admission to the J.D. Program at the law school at the University of Chicago.

3. The application requested Respondent to list in chronological order all colleges, universities, and graduate or professional schools attended. In filing out the application, Respondent omitted the University of Illinois' College of Medicine from his list.

4. The application further requested Respondent to answer the following question: "Were you ever dismissed or placed on academic probation or subjected to serious disciplinary action at any college or university?" In his application, Respondent answered "No."

5. At the bottom of the application, Respondent was required to certify and he did certify that the information he provided on the application form was true and complete.

6. At the time he completed his application, Respondent knew that the information he provided on the application was both false and incomplete in that he failed to list his education and subsequent dismissal from the University of Illinois. Respondent also knew that the law school would make a decision on his admission based upon the information in the application, and .Respondent intended to deceive the Law School at the University of Chicago by submitting the false application to the School.

7. Respondent was admitted to the University of Chicago Law School based upon his false application. At no time prior to the time he commenced his studies at the University of Chicago Law School did Respondent change his application to provide truthful information to the University.

8. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

  2. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  3. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT II
(Misrepresentations on student record)

1. Between August 2000 and May 2003 Respondent attended University of Chicago Law School.

2. On or about 2001, while a second-year law student, Respondent sent his resume to a number of law firms, including the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, seeking employment as a summer associate.

3. Together with the resume, Respondent submitted a purported student record of the University of Chicago Law School. Respondent represented to the law firms that the student record was a true and accurate record of his law school grades and achievements.

4. The purported student record which Respondent prepared and submitted contained false information, as set forth below in the column "grade as reported by Respondent." The student record submitted by Respondent was false and Respondent knew it was false because he had altered the student record by changing grades so that the student record showed higher grades than Respondent actually received. The grade Respondent actually received is set forth in the column marked "actual grade."

COURSE

GRADE AS REPORTED BY RESPONDENT

ACTUAL GRADE

Autumn 2000

Elements of Law

80 (A)

73 (C)

Civil Procedure-I

78 (B)

72 (C)

Contracts

-

-
Torts

-

-
Legal Research and Writing

-

-

Winter 2001

Property

-

-

Contracts

B

C

Torts

81 (A)

74 (B)

Legal Research and Writing

-

-

Technology, Innovation & Society

81 (A)

71 (C)

Spring 2001

Civil Procedure II

77 (B)

72 (C)

Criminal Law

79 (B)

73 (C)

Property

78 (B)

73 (C)

Legal Research and Writing

A

B

Economic Analysis of law

B

C

Autumn 2001

Secured Transactions

B

C

Federal Regulation of Securities

B

C

Corporate Finance

80 (A)

77 (B)

Winter 2002

Corporation Law

79 (B+)

75 (C)

Antitrust

77 (B)

71 (C)

Advanced Securities

75 (B)

68 (C-)

Financial Accounting

B

C

Spring 2002

Legal Profession

B+

B-

International Trade Regulations

78 (B+)

74 (B-)

Law and Economics of Health Care

IP (in progress)

IP

Network Industries

77 (B)

72 (C)

Law, Science and Medicine

IP

IP

5. Based in part upon the altered student record, Respondent received an offer of employment as a summer associate from Sidley & Austin. On or about June 3, 2002, Respondent began employment as a summer associate at Sidley Austin LLP where he worked until approximately August 2002.

6. Based upon the altered student record, on September 27, 2002, Sidley and Austin extended an offer of employment as an associate, beginning in 2003.

7. At no time between June 3, 2002 and August 2003, did Respondent advise Sidley & Austin that he had submitted a false student record to them.

8. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

  2. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  3. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT III
(Misrepresentation on application to the Illinois Bar)

1-7. The Administrator repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-7 of Count II.

8. On or about December 25, 2005, Respondent prepared and signed a character and fitness questionnaire in his application to the Bar in Illinois.

9. The questionnaire asked Respondent to answer 55 questions relating to his character and fitness to practice law. At no time did Respondent provide any information in questions 1-52, 54 or 55 about his conduct in altering his transcripts as set forth in Count II.

10. Question 53 of the questionnaire asked the following: "Is there any additional information with respect to possible misconduct or lack of moral qualification or general fitness on your part that is not otherwise disclosed by your answers to questions in this application. If yes…fully explain."

11. In his response to question 53, Respondent provided information to the Committee on Character and Fitness relating his failure to advise the University of Chicago Law School of his academic dismissal from the University of Illinois Medical School in his application. In his response to question 53 Respondent did not advise Character and Fitness that he had altered his law school transcripts and provided the altered transcripts to potential employers. At no time prior to his admission to the Bar in the State of Illinois did Respondent change or amend his answer to question 53 to provide the Character and Fitness information about his altered law school transcripts.

12. Respondent's preparation of his application and his answer to question 53 and his failure to advise the Committee on Character in Fitness of his conduct in submitting the altered academic transcripts to employers was a deliberate omission, and Respondent's intention was to mislead the Committee in order to further advance his chances for admission to the Illinois Bar.

13. Respondent subsequently mailed the questionnaire to the Committee on Character and Fitness together with the remainder of his application to the Illinois Bar. The Committee received it on December 30, 2005.

147. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has engaged in the following misconduct:

  1. making a statement of fact known by the applicant to be false in his application to the Bar, in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

  2. failing to disclose a fact necessary to correct a material misapprehension in his application to the Bar, in violation of Rule 8.1(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

  3. conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

  4. conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

  5. conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute, in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be held pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), and the Panel make findings of fact, conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation of such discipline as is warranted.

Wendy J. Muchman
Counsel for Administrator
One Prudential Plaza
130 East Randolph Drive, Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312 565-2600
Facsimile: (312) 565-2320
Respectfully submitted,

Jerome Larkin, Administrator
Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission

By:   Wendy J. Muchman