Connection lost
Server error
PEOPLE v. COLE Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Cook County Public Defender was held in contempt for refusing to represent a co-defendant, arguing her entire office had a conflict of interest. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that a public defender’s office is not a single “law firm” for imputed disqualification purposes.
Legal Significance: This case reaffirms the long-standing Illinois precedent that a public defender’s office is not a “law firm” for imputed disqualification under conflict of interest rules, meaning representation of co-defendants by different assistants is not a per se conflict.
PEOPLE v. COLE Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Cook County Public Defender’s Office (CCPDO) was appointed to represent five co-defendants in a multi-count murder and kidnapping case. When the trial court later appointed the CCPDO to represent a sixth co-defendant, Salimah Cole, the Public Defender, Amy Campanelli, refused the appointment. Campanelli argued that under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, particularly Rules 1.7 (Concurrent Conflict of Interest) and 1.10 (Imputation of Conflicts), her office constituted a single “law firm.” She contended that representing multiple co-defendants created an inherent conflict of interest that was imputed to every attorney in her office, including herself, as she was statutorily the attorney for every client. Campanelli asserted that this conflict existed regardless of whether different assistant public defenders (APDs) from separate divisions were assigned to each defendant. When she persisted in her refusal, the trial court found her in direct civil contempt to facilitate an appeal on the issue, imposing a daily fine until she complied. The Illinois Supreme Court granted a direct appeal.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a public defender’s office constitute a single “law firm” for the purpose of imputed disqualification under Rule 1.10 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, thereby creating a per se conflict of interest when the office represents multiple co-defendants in the same case?
No. The public defender’s office is not a “law firm” for imputed Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cil
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a public defender’s office constitute a single “law firm” for the purpose of imputed disqualification under Rule 1.10 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, thereby creating a per se conflict of interest when the office represents multiple co-defendants in the same case?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the principle that public defender offices in Illinois operate Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Legal Rule
A public defender's office is not considered a "law firm" for the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mol
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the public defender's argument that her Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A public defender’s office is not a “firm” for conflict of