SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
Robert M. Craig, P 35139, Dearborn, Suspension - 180 Days, Effective October 15, 2024
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a 180- Day Suspension, in accordance with MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #13 by Order dated June 20, 2025. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted on October 15, 2024, by guilty plea of Operating While Intoxicated - 3rd Offense, a felony under MCL 257.625, in State of Michigan v Robert Michael Craig, Wayne County Circuit Court Case No. 24- 003774-01-FH; and was convicted on August 28, 2024, by guilty plea, of Operating Without License on Person, a misdemeanor under MCL 257.311, in People v Robert M. Craig, City of Dearborn Heights 20th District Court, Case No. C042287. In accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(1), respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan was automatically suspended, effective October 15, 2024, the date of respondent’s felony conviction.
Based on respondent’s admission and the stipulation of the parties, the 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); and, conduct involving a violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer, and constituted professional misconduct under MRPC 8.4(b).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, effective October 15, 2024, the date of respondent’s automatic interim suspension from the practice of law in Michigan for his felony conviction. Costs were assessed in the amount of $832.10.
SUSPENSION
Wayne F. Crowe, P 77374, Grand Rapids, Suspension - 90 Days, effective July 19, 2025
In a reciprocal discipline proceeding under MCR 9.120(C), the Grievance Administrator filed a certified copy of an order issued by the Supreme Court of New York, suspending respondent’s license to practice law in New York for three months, effective March 7, 2022, In the Matter of Wayne F. Crowe, an Attorney, Case No. 2021-03603.
An order regarding imposition of reciprocal discipline was served upon respondent on August 18, 2023. Respondent filed a timely objection and Kent County Hearing Panel #6 was assigned to consider the matter, pursuant to MCR 9.120(C)(3). After further briefing by the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to satisfy his burden of showing that he was not afforded due process of law in the course of the original proceedings or that the imposition of comparable discipline in Michigan would be clearly inappropriate.
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 90 days, consistent and comparable with the suspension first imposed by the New York disciplinary system. Respondent filed a timely petition for review and a request for stay, which was granted automatically pursuant to MCR 9.115(K).
Following proceedings conducted in accordance with MCR 9.118, the Board issued an opinion and order affirming the hearing panel’s order of 90-day suspension. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s order affirming the hearing panel’s order, which was denied by the Board on March 10, 2025. Respondent then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which was denied in an order issued on June 27, 2025. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $1,720.23.
REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS AND RESTITUTION
Fawaz, P 83664, Dearborn Reprimand, Effective July 8, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed an Amended 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 Tri-County Hearing Panel #6. The parties dismissed paragraph 79(v) of the formal complaint, and respondent pled no contest to the factual allegations and rule violations set forth in the balance of the formal complaint. Specifically, the stipulation for consent order of discipline contained respondent’s no contest plea to allegations that he: made disparaging remarks about other attorneys before and during the representation of his clients, failed to adequately communicate with his clients, failed to properly account for client funds, charged a clearly excessive fee, and failed to appear at hearings leading to default judgments, and entered into unauthorized settlements. The stipulation for consent order of discipline further contained respondent’s no contest plea to the allegation that, after his representation was terminated, respondent delayed or failed to return client files, improperly held client funds without providing an accounting, and failed to timely withdraw as attorney of record from those cases.
Based upon respondent’s no contest pleas as set forth in the parties’ amended stipulation, the panel found that respondent failed to provide competent representation to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.1; neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation MRPC 1.1(c); failed to seek the lawful objectives of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); settled a case without the authorization of his client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and/or failed to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to promptly notify his client about settlement offers, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a); failed to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit his client to make informed decisions regarding the representation, in violation of MRPC 1.4(b); entered into an agreement for, charged, and/or collected an illegal or clearly excessive fee, in violation of MRPC 1.5(a); failed to adequately communicate the basis or rate of the fee to his client, in violation of MRPC 1.5(b); entered into a contingent-fee agreement that was not in writing and/or which did not state the method by which the fee was to be determined, in violation of MRPC 1.5(c); failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent employees, associates, or others whose services are utilized by him from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client, in violation of MRPC 1.6(d); failed to (1) promptly notify a client or third person when funds or property in which a client or third person has an interest were received; (2) preserve complete records of such account funds and other property for a period of five years after termination of the representation; and (3) promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive, except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, and, upon request by the client or third person, promptly render a full accounting regarding such property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b); represented a client or, after representation had commenced, failed to withdraw from the representation of a client where, (1) the representation would result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law, (2) his physical or mental condition materially impaired his ability to represent the client, or (3) he was discharged, in violation of MRPC 1.16(a); failed to take reasonable steps to protect a client’s interests upon termination of representation, including by failing to surrender papers or property to which the client is entitled and failing to refund any advance payment of fee that has not been earned, in violation of MRPC 1.16(d); filed pleadings and motions, asserting or controverting issues without a basis for doing so that is non-frivolous, in violation of MRPC 3.1; failed to make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of his client, in violation of MRPC 3.2; as a partner of a law firm, he failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm had in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the conduct of nonlawyers in the firm was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(a); having direct supervisory authority over a nonlawyer, failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person’s conduct was compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer, in violation of MRPC 5.3(b); failed to treat with courtesy and respect all persons involved in the legal process, in violation of MRPC 6.5(a); gave something of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services, in violation of MRPC 7.2(c); engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1); engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2); and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3).
In accordance with the amended stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded, required him to comply with conditions relevant to the established misconduct, and to pay restitution in the amount of $12,465.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,502.31.
On July 7, 2025, the complainant timely filed a petition for review pursuant to MCR 9.118. Complainant’s petition for review is currently pending before the Board.
SUSPENSION REPRIMAND WITH CONDITIONS AND RESTITUTION (BY CONSENT)
Ernest Friedman, P 26642, Farmington Hills, Michigan Suspension - 180 Days, Effective October 18, 2024
Based on the evidence presented to Tri- County Hearing Panel #57 at hearings held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, the hearing panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct in two separate and unrelated counts, one pertaining to management of an IOLTA and the other relating to respondent’s suspension for misconduct found in Grievance Administrator v Ernest Friedman, 18-37-GA.
Specifically, the panel found that respondent failed to promptly pay or deliver any funds or other property that the client or third person is entitled to receive, except as stated in this rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client or third person, and, upon request by the client or third person, promptly render a full accounting regarding such property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(b)(3) [Count One]; failed to hold property of clients or third persons in connection with a representation separate from his own property, in violation of MRPC 1.15(d) [Count One]; deposited funds into the IOLTA in an amount in excess of the amount reasonably necessary to pay financial institution service charges or fees, in violation of MRPC 1.15(f) [Count One]; failed to notify all active clients, in writing, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, of his suspension, in violation of MCR 9.119(A) [Count Two]; failed to file with the tribunal and all parties a notice of his disqualification from the practice of law, in violation of MCR 9.119(B) [Count Two]; and, filed a false reinstatement affidavit, in violation of MCR 9.123(A) [Count Two]. The panel also found respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(1) [Count One]; MCR 9.104(2) [Counts One and Two]; MCR 9.104(3) [Count Two]; MCR 9.104(4) [Counts One and Two]; MRPC 8.4(a) [Counts One and Two]; and MRPC 8.4(c) [Count Two].
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days. On October 10, 2024, respondent timely filed a petition for review pursuant to MCR 9.118 and a petition for stay pursuant to MCR 9.115(K). Respondent’s petition for a stay was denied by the Board on October 17, 2024. After proceedings in accordance with MCR 9.118, the Board affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part, the panel’s findings of misconduct and affirmed the 180-day suspension of respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $3,598.59.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS
Jason Kolkema, P 55936, Norton Shores, Suspension - 90 Days, Effective July 31, 2025
Based on the evidence presented at a hearing held in this matter in accordance with MCR 9.115, Muskegon County Hearing Panel #2 found that respondent committed the criminal offense of domestic violence, to which he pled guilty, while a candidate for Muskegon County Circuit Court Judge. Specifically, the panel found that respondent failed to participate in maintaining the required standards of conduct to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, by engaging in improper conduct, and by failing to respect and observe the law, in violation of MCJC Canons 1, 2(A), and 2(B); engaged in conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law pursuant to MCR 2.615, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.104(5); and, knowingly failed to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a) (2). The panel also found respondent’s conduct to have violated MCR 9.104(2)-(4).
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct, which were later modified by the panel when they granted petitioner’s motion to do so.
Respondent timely filed a petition for review and motion for stay. The Board granted a stay of respondent’s discipline pending completion of the review proceedings to be held in accordance with MCR 9.118. After a hearing on the matter, the Board reduced the discipline imposed from a 180-day suspension to a 90-day suspension and affirmed the conditions imposed and later modified by the hearing panel, effective July 31, 2025. Total costs were assessed in the amount of $2,663.18.
SUSPENSION AND RESTITUTION
Thomas D. Noonan, P 60450, Canton Suspension - Two Years, Effective June 30, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5), which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #10. The stipulation contained respondent’s no contest pleas to the factual allegations and grounds for discipline set forth in the Two-Count formal complaint. Regarding Count One, respondent was retained to represent his clients in a breach of contract and conversion lawsuit but failed to file a response to a motion, drafted a fake settlement agreement, and in response to a request for investigation, admitted that he “dropped the ball” and was not honest with his clients. As a result, his clients later faced a garnishment. As to Count Two, respondent represented a client in a criminal case, who was incarcerated, and surveillance footage from respondent’s visit to the jail showed respondent meeting with his client and smuggling cigarettes to her. Additionally, recorded jail phone calls – unprotected due to respondent’s failure to register his number as privileged with the phone company – revealed conversations between he and his client about bringing over-the counter medication, cigarettes, and two vape pens for respondent’s next visit, as well as discussions about concealing the contraband. Respondent later admitted to bringing six to eight cigarettes to clients during the visit.
Based upon respondent’s no contest pleas and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, in violation of MRPC 1.1(c) [Count One]; failed to act with reasonable diligence and promptness, in violation of MRPC 1.3 [Count One]; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter, in violation of MRPC 1.4(a) [Count One]; engaged in conduct that violates the standards or rules of professional conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and 9.104(4) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice, in violation of MRPC 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [Counts One and Two]; and engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One and Two].
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for a period of two years and that he pay restitution1 in the amount of $2,500.00. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,142.62.
1. On January 24, 2025, the State Bar of Michigan’s Client Protection Fund made payment to complainant in the amount of $2,500.00. Respondent was ordered to reimburse the Client Protection Fund.
SUSPENSION (BY CONSENT)
James M. Poniewierski, P 73652, Southfield Suspension - 30 Days, Effective August 1, 2025
Respondent and the Grievance Administrator filed a Stipulation for Consent Order of a 30- Day Suspension, which was approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Tri-County Hearing Panel #101. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted on November 29, 2021, by guilty plea, of Operating While Intoxicated, 2nd Offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625, in State of Michigan v James Poniewierski, 41B District Court, Case No. 21-3249SM, and that his conviction constituted professional misconduct. The stipulation also contained the parties’ agreement that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days. After its filing, the parties filed a supplement to their original stipulation, indicating that the parties were in agreement that good cause exists for the order of suspension to be effective August 1, 2025, and the panel agreed.
Based on respondent’s conviction, admissions and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he 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); and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law be suspended for 30 days, effective August 1, 2025. Costs were assessed in the amount of $807.26
REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
John R. Scheuerle, P 42933, Grand Haven Reprimand - Effective July 24, 2025
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 Kent County Hearing Panel #4. The stipulation contained respondent’s admission that he was convicted by guilty plea of one count of operating while intoxicated, a misdemeanor in violation of MCL/PACC Code 257.6251-A, in State of Michigan v John R. Scheuerle, 58th Judicial District Court of Grand Haven, Case No. GH-22-069064-SD, and that the conviction constituted professional misconduct.
Based on respondent’s conviction, admission, and the parties’ stipulation, the panel found that respondent committed professional misconduct when he engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state or of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the hearing panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,146.32.
NOTICE OF REPRIMAND (BY CONSENT)
Walter A. White, Jr., P 27792, Harrison Reprimand, Effective July 3, 2025
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 Genesee County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained the parties’ agreement that subparagraphs 24(d) and 24(f) of the formal complaint be dismissed, and respondent’s admissions to the factual allegations and remaining allegations of professional misconduct set forth in the formal complaint, specifically that, during respondent’s representation of a client in a criminal jury trial, respondent failed to object to the introduction of evidence used for impeachment of a witness that was inadmissible pursuant to the Michigan Rules of Evidence, and that respondent’s failure to object prejudiced his client.
Based upon respondent’s admissions and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent failed to provide competent representation to a client, in violation of MRPC 1.1; failed to seek the lawful objectives of his client, in violation of MRPC 1.2(a); failed to act with reasonable promptness and diligence in representing his client, in violation of MRPC 1.3; and engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the court to obloquy, contempt, censure or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2).
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the panel ordered that respondent be reprimanded. Costs were assessed in the amount of $750.00.
SUSPENSION WITH CONDITIONS (BY CONSENT)
Daren Wiseley, P 85220, Hillsdale Suspension - 180 Days, effective July 9, 2025
The Grievance Administrator filed a combined Notice of Filing of Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint against respondent. The matter was assigned to Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3. The notice, filed in accordance with MCR 9.120(B)(3), advised that respondent 1) was found in criminal contempt on March 24, 2023, in the matter titled In Re Contempt of Daren A. Wiseley, People of the State of Michigan v Justin Ray Mason, Presque Isle County, 53rd Judicial Circuit Court, Case No. 21-93168-FC; 2) was found in criminal contempt on April 3, 2023, in the matter titled In Re Contempt of Daren A. Wiseley, People of the State of Michigan v Justin Ray Mason, Presque Isle County, 53rd Judicial Circuit Court, Case No. 21-93168-FC; 3) was convicted on February 12, 2024, of failure to report an accident to fixtures, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.621, in the matter titled State of Michigan v Daren Wiseley, 3-A District Court, Case No. 2023- 0696-ST; and, 4) was convicted on March 26, 2024, of battery, a misdemeanor, in violation of F.S.S. 784.03(1)(a) (1), in the matter titled State of Florida v Daren Andrew Wiseley, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for Osceola County, Florida, Case No. 22-CF-002308.
Count One of the formal complaint alleged that, after respondent was convicted of the offenses set forth above, respondent failed to notify the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission of the convictions. Count Two involves respondent’s conduct that lead to the contempt proceedings against him. Specifically, respondent represented Justin Mason in a criminal jury trial in Presque Isle County, Michigan. On March 23, 2023, while the jury deliberated, the court ordered both the prosecuting attorney and respondent to remain at the courthouse. However, when the jury submitted a question to the court, respondent was found to be absent, being located later asleep in an apartment nearby. Following the jury’s verdict, the court initiated a contempt proceeding, during which the court questioned respondent regarding his frame of mind, and respondent answered that he was merely tired but not under the influence but merely tired. The court found him in contempt for violating its order and sentenced him to 24 hours in jail. During booking, respondent’s breath test registered a blood alcohol content of 0.15, prompting a second contempt hearing. At that hearing, despite admitting to drinking, respondent denied being impaired. The court found him in criminal contempt for lying about his intoxication during the earlier proceeding and ordered another 24-hour jail term, to run concurrently with the first, with credit for time already served.
On February 18, 2025, the Grievance Administrator filed a second notice of filing of judgment of conviction, Case 25-14-JC, showing that respondent was convicted by guilty plea of Domestic Violence, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 750.812, in People v Daren Andrew Wiseley, 3A District Court - Branch County, Case No. 2024-00669-FY. Case 25-14-JC was consolidated before Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3 with 24-102-JC and 24-103-GA.
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 Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3. The stipulation contained respondent’s admissions to the convictions identified in the judgments of conviction and that these convictions constituted professional misconduct, as well as his no contest pleas to the factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct set forth in Counts One and Two of the formal complaint.
Based on respondent’s admission, no contest pleas, and the stipulation of the parties, the panel found that respondent made a knowingly false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or failed to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.3(a)(1) [Count Two]; knowingly disobeyed an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, in violation of MRPC 3.4(c) [Count Two]; failed to provide notice of his convictions, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2) and MCR 9.120(A) and (B) [Count One]; engaged in conduct that is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in violation of MRPC 8.4(a) and MCR 9.104(4) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b) [Judgments of Conviction and Count Two]; engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of 8.4(c) and MCR 9.104(1) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct that exposes the legal profession or the courts to obloquy, contempt, censure, or reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2) [Counts One and Two]; engaged in conduct that is contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3) [Counts One and Two]; and, engaged in conduct that violated a criminal law of a state of the United States, an ordinance, or tribal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5) [Judgments of Conviction].
The panel ordered that respondent’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 180 days, as agreed to by the parties, effective July 9, 2025, and that he be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct. Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,079.76.