Law Offices of David L. Freidberg

01/21/2025

https://profiles.superlawyers.com/illinois/chicago/lawyer/david-l-freidberg/269b4b54-17bc-417f-a0c0-dc023191bcaa.html

David Freidberg is one of the top rated Criminal Defense attorneys in Chicago, IL. He has met the stringent Super Lawyers selection criteria.

01/24/2023

Honored to have made the list for the fifth year in a row.

04/19/2020

PETITIONS TO EXPUNGE/SEAL: Special Promotion. From today until May 18, 2020, special pricing will be $500.00 plus any applicable filing fees. Regular fee is $750.00 There is an additional fee if an objection is filed which requires a hearing. Please feel free to call or text me at 312-560-7100 or [email protected]

04/19/2020

The Conona Virus / Covid 19 Pandemic has uprooted our daily routine. We understand that many people are still going to have to deal with the challenges of navigating the legal system. As always, we remain ever represent for your legal requirements. Have your representation ready for when Court resumes.... Do not hesitate to call or text us at 312-560-7100 or send an email to [email protected], we are available 24/7 for your needs.

01/30/2020

Once I again I was selected as a Superlawyer for 2020. I have to say I am proud to have garnered such a prestigious award again.

David Freidberg is one of the top rated Criminal Defense attorneys in Highland Park, IL. He has met the stringent Super Lawyers selection criteria.

11/14/2019

Case: 19 OP 756XX
Case Conclusion Date: November 6, 2019
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Petition for Stalking/No Contact Order DENIED

This one is a bit more interesting, a bit of a love triangle in which I represent the Respondent in the fight against a Stalking/No Contact Order. There were a few allegations in the Petitioner's Petition but the most "damaging" one is that it was alleged that my client came to the Petitioner's house, banged on the door, and after receiving no answer, proceeded to kick the door a few times. She then went around to the side of the house and kicked a window and broke a screen. Well, turns out the Petitioner has a video doorbell camera, which did in fact show my client committing these acts of aggression. So maybe an uphill battle you think? Not really.

Here comes the triangle... Petitioner at the time of these incidents is married to a gentleman; we'll call him "Bob". Turns out, while Bob is married to the Petitioner, he meets the Respondent on some online dating site. It gets better. Bob gets the Respondent pregnant and she has his baby. The Petitioner eventually becomes aware of this but as of today's date, they are still married and live in the same home. The child lives with the Respondent but now attends school in the same neighborhood in Chicago as the Petitioner and Bob. And because it is Chicago, the child must live in the neighborhood, so the Respondent now moves into their neighborhood.

Petitioner is unhappy with this situation and starts looking at Bob's text messages with Respondent and causing issues at home. Long and short of it, Respondent did not come to the house to see Petitioner, she came to see Bob. So there is no stalking. Petitioner also attempted to bring up other incidents that were not laid out in her Petition, which is impermissible in civil practice and all of my objections were sustained as to any other incidents. Petition was denied.

Free Consultation - Call (312) 560-7100 - The David L. Freidberg aggressively represent the accused against charges in Crime & Criminal cases. Chicago Stalking Defense Lawyer - Cook County Crime Lawyer

11/14/2019

Case: 18 OP 79###
Case Conclusion Date: October 3, 2019
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Petition for Stalking/No Contact Order DENIED

More often than not I represent the Respondent in the fight against an Order of Protection or Stalking/No Contact Order, as in this case. Respondent was a 50-something professional stylist that just did not get along with her co-worker. Arguments ensued at work and at one point escalated to physical contact. An additional aggravating factor is that the police were called and my client was arrested and charged with battery - which is a criminal misdemeanor, which carries a possible sentence of up to a year in jail if convicted. Obviously my client was not going to take a plea of guilty on the criminal matter and it was set for trial, which with my help she won.

Then came the hearing for the Stalking/No Contact order. What is very important, that many do not understand, is that a Stalking/No Contact order can only be entered if there are at least two instances of stalking or interfering with personal liberties in a certain manner. After testimony from both sides I argued that stalking cannot occur when said allegations occur within the workplace where both parties are employed. It is a legal impossibility. The Court correctly agreed and the Petition for No Contact was denied.

Free Consultation - Call (312) 560-7100 - The David L. Freidberg aggressively represent the accused against charges in Crime & Criminal cases. Chicago Stalking Defense Lawyer - Cook County Crime Lawyer

09/26/2019

Case: 18 CR 148XX
Case Conclusion Date: September 25, 2019
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Reduced from Felony to Misdemeanor with No Conviction

Client was charged with FELONY Aggravated Battery with Great Bodily Harm. This charge is a Class 3 Felony and carries a possible sentence of two to five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (Prison). In a nutshell, while attending a carnival at a local Chicago high school, the complaining witness (victim) was attacked my multiple individuals who wrestled him to the ground, stomped on his head and kicked him multiple times about the face and body. There was no question as to whether a battery was committed or that great bodily harm was incurred. The victim suffered multiple fractures and contusions to his face and body. Luckily he eventually fully recovered and appeared in court at the trial. Now, the issue is whether or not MY client committed aggravated battery with great bodily harm. There were multiple cell phone videos provided by the state, taken by bystanders with the cell phones, that clearly show my client involved in the altercation. But, my client only entered into the fray at the end of the fight and only kicked the victim 3 times in the legs.

We prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorneys Office to review in the hopes of a reducer to a misdemeanor charge of battery, not a felony. The State reviewed the packet and spoke with the victim's mother about a reduced charge. She would not agree and wanted someone to pay for her sons' injuries. Part of the problem is that the other individuals arrested were juveniles and were not on trial with my client in the "adult" court. As such, we had no option other than to go to trial. There was no question that my client committed a misdemeanor battery, but in my mind, it was not a felony.

Just before the trial started, the State's Attorney came to us with an offer of a reducer for a misdemeanor charge but also requested restitution for the victim's medical bills. I discussed the offer with my client and suggested he reject the offer as he was not responsible for the injuries the victim incurred. He agreed and we wen to trial.

At trial, the video was played of the incident for the judge, the victim and another few witnesses testified and at the end of the State's portion of the trial, I made a motion for directed finding stating that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony aggravated battery was committed by my client. The judge agreed and granted my motion as it pertained to the felony count and allowed the trial to continue based solely on a lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery. After discussing with my client as to whether he should testify, suggesting he not, he agreed and we rested out portion of the case. Finding of guilty only on a misdemeanor charge. Sentence was 18 months of court supervision, which is NOT a conviction and can be expunged two years after supervision is terminated.

https://www.chicagocriminallawyer.pro/aggravated-battery.html

09/17/2019

Case: 18 OP 791XX
Case Conclusion Date: June 11, 2019
Practice Area: Order of Protection
Outcome: Dismissed

As if often the case, I was contacted by a Respondent in a Petition for Order of Protection matter. The Petitioner made allegations that my client, on more than on occasion, struck her in the head, grabbed her about the body and made insulting remarks to her. After a careful review of the file and even interviewing the Petitioner in court, it became clear that her allegations were nothing more than that. My client was adamant about proceeding to a hearing and the Court set a date. At the hearing date, I again spoke to the Petitioner about the case and her chances of prevailing on her Petition. Apparently she took my advice to heart and when the case was called for the hearing, she dismissed the matter and I was able to have the Emergency Order of Protection entered previously vacated.

09/13/2019

Very honored to be honored again for 2020...

David Freidberg is one of the top rated Criminal Defense attorneys in Chicago, IL. He has met the stringent Super Lawyers selection criteria.

04/16/2019

19 DV 72###
Case Conclusion Date: 04.16.2019
Description: It never helps to lie. My client was charged with assault and domestic battery against her roommate. Allegedly my client got into an altercation with the "victim" when she tried to move her dining room table back into the dining room after the victim moved it. The undisputed facts are that while the victim was shoving the table into my client, my client grabbed a hammer off the table and threatened her with it. The victim claimed that my client also grabber her by the wrist, thus the domestic battery charge. That was the entirety of the allegations. The States Attorney offered my client court supervision, which I conveyed, and after discussing the ramifications of such a plea with my client, she opted for a trial, smart choice. At the trial the victim testified that not only did my client threaten her with the hammer and grab her wrist, she also threw shoes at her, shoved her into the closet clothing organizer AND actually hit her in the midsection with the hammer. None of this was stated to the officer or in his sworn report. Luckily the officer was in court and upon cross examination, confirmed this lack of information and the victim was impeached. At the close of the State's case, I motioned for a directed verdict which was granted. The Court did not believe a word of the victim's testimony after she was caught lying. NOT GUILTY