Notices

Decision Information

Decision Content

MEMBERS REV. MICHAEL MURRAY CHAIRPERSON JONATHAN E. LAUDERBACH VICE-CHAIRPERSON BARBARA WILLIAMS FORNEY SECRETARY JAMES A. FINK JOHN W. INHULSEN

KAREN D. O'DONOGHUE MICHAEL B. RIZIK, JR.

LINDA S. HOTCHKISS, MD ANNA M. FRUSHOUR

STATE OF MICHIGAN 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

KAREN M. DALEY ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

SHERRY L. MIFSUD OFFICE ADMINISTRA TOR

ALLYSON M. PLOURDE CASE MANAGER

OWEN R. MONTGOMERY CASE MANAGER

JULIE M. LOISELLE RECEPTIONISTISECRETARY

www.adbmich.org

NOTICE OF DISBARMENT (By Consent)

Case Nos. 18-50-AI; 18-53-JC Notice Issued: October 2, 2018 Scott C. Hess, P 45865, Delafield, Wisconsin, by the Attorney Discipline Board Tri-County Hearing Panel #23.

Disbarment, Effective April 26, 20181 . Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a stipulation for consent order of discipline, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by the hearing panel. The stipulation contained respondent's admission that he was convicted of two counts of wire fraud (felonies), in violation of 18 USC 1343, in the matter titled United States of America v Scott Hess, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 18-cr-44-1-JPS. Based on respondent's conviction and his admission in the stipulation, the hearing panel found that respondent engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).

In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in Michigan. Costs were assessed in the amount of $845.05.

~a~ Mark A. Armitage Executive Director

1 The date of respondent's Automatic Interim Suspension pursuant to MCR 9.120(8)(1).

 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.