The opinion
JUSTICE MORAN, dissenting:
I find this court’s decision in In re Rosenthal (1978), 73 Ill. 2d 46 , cert. denied (1979), 440 U.S. 961 , 59 L. Ed. 2d 775 , 99 S. Ct. 1505 , not cited by the majority, to clearly warrant the disbarment of respondent. In Rosenthal, respondents bribed a public official in order to obtain a zoning change sought by their client. This court rejected a number of factors offered by respondents in mitigation and ordered that they be disbarred. In the instant case, respondent procured for his client a barber’s license by means of bribing a public official. The majority accepted the mitigating circumstances urged by respondent and ordered him suspended for three years. I fail to see any justification for the disparity in sanctions. Further, as this court stated in Rosenthal:
“Corruption within government could not, in most instances, thrive but for those few attorneys, who, like respondents, are willing to tolerate such illegal activity if it will benefit their client. The practice of law is a privilege and demands a greater acceptance of responsibility and adherence to ethical standards than respondents have demonstrated. Their conduct, in facilitating and participating in the paying of money to [a public official], was clearly a breach of required professional conduct. Their activities discredited the integrity of the bar and impeded the administration of justice.” 73 Ill. 2d 46, 56 .
For the above reasons, I cannot agree with the sanction imposed herein.
JUSTICE UNDERWOOD joins in this dissent.