Legal News

Transcript-Doctoring Former Chicago Student Cleared to Practice

By Ashby Jones

The findings on Loren Friedman — accused of doctoring his University of Chicago Law School transcript when he applied for a summer associate position at Mayer Brown back in 2002 — are in. The Illinois Review Board has cut him some slack.

On Thursday, the Review Board rejected calls for disbarment and instead proposed an 19-month “suspension with fitness.” Click here for the report. Click here and here for background from Above the Law and the ABA Journal respectively. Hat tip: Legal Profession Blog.

We’re not sure where Friedman’s been since early 2008, but prior to that he’d been an associate at Curtis Mallet.

Is the board’s finding surprising? We’ll let you be the judge, LBers. The findings made by the review board include the following.

• Friedman 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 Respohdent 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.
• 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.
• The law firm of Sidley Austin LLP (Sidley) offered Respondent a summer associate position. . . . During his employment, Respondent gave Sidley a second altered transcript containing his second-year grades, all of which he had changed.
• In addition, Respondent plagiarized a portion of a paper he submitted in his Law, Science and Medicine class in the spring of 2002.
• 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.

It’s a pretty weird catalogue of events, eh?

Should Friedman have been disbarred? The Illinois Review Board didn’t see it that way:

While reprehensible, Respondent's misconduct did not harm any clients. Neither is there any indication in the record that Respondent acted dishonestly while practicing law in New York. Based on his sincere remorse and his acceptance of responsibility for his actions, it appears that Respondent has learned from his mistakes. In our view, a suspension of eighteen months UFO is sufficient to protect the public, deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and require Respondent to satisfy his obligation of establishing his character and fitness before resuming practice.’

LBers, any thoughts? Would disbarment have been appropriate here? Or does a seemingly straightened out Friedman deserve another chance to ply his trade as a lawyer?

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 15, 2010 (boomark / email).