## Facts

- Morton E. Friedman, an Illinois attorney and chief of the criminal division of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, was the subject of a two-count attorney-disciplinary complaint.
- The Administrator alleged Friedman violated DR 7-102(A)(6), DR 7-102(A)(4), DR 7-109(B), and DR 1-102(A)(4) by approving or directing investigative tactics involving false testimony, false evidence, and witness nonappearance.
- The underlying conduct arose from two undercover operations aimed at exposing defense attorneys allegedly arranging bribes to secure favorable outcomes in criminal cases.
- In Count I, after a DUI arrest, an undercover scheme permitted the defense attorney’s bribery plan to proceed; police officers gave false testimony or failed to appear so the case would be dismissed, and after the bribery transaction the deception and perjury were disclosed to the court.
- In Count II, a similar operation used controlled deception (including perjury or suppression of witness appearance) to induce corrupt defense counsel to believe prosecutors and police would cooperate; after the bribery transaction, the conduct was revealed to the court.
- The facts were stipulated and undisputed; Friedman’s stated purpose was to develop evidence for later prosecutions of corrupt attorneys.
- The ARDC Hearing Board found no Code violation and recommended dismissal with prejudice; on reconsideration the Review Board recommended censure; the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the recommendation.

## Issues

1. Whether disciplinary action is warranted when a prosecutor engages in conduct that literally violates the Code of Professional Responsibility (false evidence, perjury, and secreting witnesses) to develop evidence for prosecutions of attorney corruption.
2. If discipline is warranted, what sanction is appropriate in light of the absence of prior authoritative guidance on such undercover methods and the prosecutor’s asserted good-faith public purpose.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court discharged Friedman and imposed no disciplinary sanction.
- The court accepted that Friedman’s conduct, in a literal sense, violated the cited disciplinary rules and that the Code contained no explicit exception for prosecutors conducting undercover investigations.
- The court nonetheless rejected the Review Board’s recommendation of censure, concluding discipline was not warranted under the circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney discipline is discretionary and depends on the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the violation, the lawyer’s purpose, and proportionality of sanction.
- Conduct involving perjury, false evidence, and witness concealment is ordinarily prohibited and threatens the integrity of judicial proceedings; the court did not treat such acts as generally permissible.
- Where an ethical question presents novel circumstances with no clear precedent or prior guidance, the absence of notice may weigh against imposing discipline, particularly when the lawyer acted in good faith for a law-enforcement objective rather than personal gain.
- Character evidence, professional reputation, and a record of public service may be considered in determining whether a lawyer’s admitted rule violations warrant professional discipline.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court concluded that although the prosecutor’s undercover tactics technically violated professional-conduct rules, the novelty of the situation, lack of prior guidance, and good-faith aim of exposing attorney bribery justified discharge without discipline, while cautioning that such conduct is not generally condoned.


In re Friedman, 392 N.E.2d 1333 (Ill. 1979)