Attorney Frank W. Parkinson has joined Bodman as a member based in the Ann Arbor office.
As a member of the Real Estate Practice Group, Parkinson’s practice includes a broad range of real estate purchase and sales, commercial landlord and tenant matters, and real estate loan transactions.
Parkinson has over 30 years of experience in the real estate industry. He has worked as a real estate developer, green builder, broker, investor, and investment advisor in conjunction with his practice as a real estate attorney. He co-founded four different firms working in the real estate industry in Michigan and Illinois.
Early in his legal career, Parkinson practiced at several large Chicago-area law firms. More recently, he has maintained his own solo practice and been Of Counsel to a business law firm in Ann Arbor.
In addition to real estate, Parkinson has transaction experience in corporate and commercial lending matters, and in environmental, land use, and beverage and hospitality licensing law matters,
Parkinson is president of the board of the Ecology Center, an Ann Arbor non-profit working towards innovative solutions for environmental issues.
- Posted April 13, 2017
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Attorney Frank W. Parkinson joins Bodman's Real Estate Practice Group in Ann Arbor
headlines Washtenaw County
- MSU Law celebrates 25 years of the Geoffrey Fieger Trial Practice Institute
- Marching on: Expert in liquor law overcomes more than her share of hurdles
- The time has come to put an end to electoral vote in U.S.
- Business helps clients take empowering step forward
- Stride for Justice charity event slated for April 18
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill




