Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. CHAIRPERSON LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL VICE-CHAIRPERSON DULCE M. FUL.LER

SECRETARY ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D.

SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D LOUANN VAN DER WIELE MICHAEL MURRAY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

STATE OF MIClllGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

211 WEST FORT STREET, SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226·3236 PHONE: 313.963-5553 I FAX: 313·963-5571

MARK A. ARMITAGE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WENDY A. NEELEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR

JENNIFER M. PETTY PARALEGAL

KATHLEEN PHILLIPS CASE MANAGER ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONIST www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT (By Consent)

Case No. 15-25-JC Notice Issued: June 15,2015

Kenneth A. Flaska, P 28605, Grosse Pointe, Michigan, the Attorney Discipline Board Tri­ County Hearing Panel #28.

1 . Disbarment 2. Effective April 14, 2014 1 Respondent was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, by plea, for the felonies of bank fraud, in violation of 18 USC §1344; and laundering monetary instruments of a value over $10,000, in violation of 18 USC §1957(a) and (b)(1).

The Grievance Administrator filed a notice of judgment of conviction on March 11, 2015. In accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), the parties filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline on May 7, 2015, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. Based on respondent's conviction and his admission in the stipulation, the hearing panel found that respondent had committed professional misconduct in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

The hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan, effective April 14, 2014, the date of the court's acceptance of respondent's guilty plea. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $977.88.

~0Ll-2--r MarkA.Arm~ JUN 1f' ­ Dated: _______

1 Respondent has not been practicing law in Michigan since July 1, 2013, the date the State Bar of Michigan accepted his letter of reSignation.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.