Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS THOMAS G. KIENBAUM CHAIRPERSON JAMES M. CAMERON, JR. VICE-CHAIRPERSON ROSALIND E. GRIFFIN, M.D. SECRETARY ANDREA L. SOLAK CARL E. VER BEEK CRAIG H. LUBBEN SYLVIA P. WHITMER, Ph.D

LAWRENCE G. CAMPBELL DULCE M. FULLER

STATE OF MICHIGAN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE BOARD

JOHN F. VAN BOLT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARK A. ARMITAGE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

( \

JENNIFER M. PETTY LEGAL ASSISTANT 211 WEST FORT ST. SUITE 1410 DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48226-3236 PHONE: 313-963-5553

FAX: 313-963-5571

WWW.ADBMICH.ORG

NOTICE OF REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS (By Consent)

Case Nos. 11- - ; 11- -PI Notice Issued: February 17, 2012

Mark A. Kaufman, P 57919, lansing, Michigan, by the Attorney Discipline Board Ingham County Hearing Panel #5.

1. Reprimand 2. Effective February 15, 2012 Respondent was convicted of trespass, in violation of MCl 750.552, in the 54-B District Court on or about June 10, 2010. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), a discipline proceeding was instituted by the Grievance Administrator, along with the filing of a petition to transfer respondent to inactive status (ADB Case No. 11-65-PI).

On December 27, 2011, the respondent and the Grievance Administrator submitted a stipulation for consent order of discipline in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5). The stipulation was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and was accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contains respondent's admission that he was convicted of trespass as set forth in the Judgment of Conviction in ADB Case No. 11-63-JC. Based on respondent's admission, the panel found that respondent had committed misconduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, in violation of MCR 9.1 04(A)(5).

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded and be subject to conditions relevant to the admitted misconduct. Additionally, the panel dismissed the petition to transfer respondent to inactive status, with prejudice, based on the stipulation of the parties. Costs were assessed in the amount of $761.98.

Dated: _______

 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.