Effective July 24, 2025, Michigan attorney John R. Scheuerle (P42933) of Grand Haven has been publicly reprimanded by the Attorney Discipline Board following a conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), a misdemeanor under Michigan law.
Background and Conviction
The reprimand stems from a guilty plea entered by Scheuerle in State of Michigan v. John R. Scheuerle, Case No. GH-22-069064-SD, in the 58th Judicial District Court of Grand Haven. He was convicted under MCL 257.625(1)(a), which prohibits operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.
Scheuerle and the Michigan Attorney Grievance Administrator submitted a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline, which was reviewed and approved by the Attorney Grievance Commission and accepted by Kent County Hearing Panel #4, pursuant to MCR 9.115(F)(5).
Findings of Misconduct
The hearing panel concluded that Scheuerle’s conduct constituted professional misconduct under MCR 9.104(5), which prohibits attorneys from violating any state, federal, local, or tribal law.
Disciplinary Framework and Analysis
In evaluating the appropriate sanction, the panel applied the American Bar Association (ABA) Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, consistent with the Michigan Supreme Court’s directive in Grievance Administrator v. Lopatin, 462 Mich 235 (2000). The stipulation acknowledged that:
- Scheuerle violated duties owed to the public;
- His mental state was negligent with respect to those duties;
- His conduct caused or posed a risk of injury to the public.
Under ABA Standard 10.3, a reprimand is generally appropriate when an attorney negligently violates a duty owed as a professional, resulting in actual or potential harm to the public, a client, or the legal system.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
The panel also considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances under ABA Standards 9.22 and 9.32, respectively.
Aggravating factors included:
- Substantial experience in the practice of law [9.22(i)]
- Illegal conduct [9.22(k)]
Mitigating factors included:
- No prior disciplinary record [9.32(a)]
- Personal or emotional problems [9.32(c)]
- Cooperative attitude during proceedings [9.32(e)]
- Good character and reputation [9.32(g)]
- Chemical dependency (alcoholism), with efforts at recovery [9.32(i)(1)-(4)]
- Imposition of other penalties or sanctions [9.32(k)]
- Expression of remorse [9.32(l)]
A particularly significant factor in the panel’s acceptance of the stipulation was Scheuerle’s efforts to address his chemical dependency, specifically his active participation in a recovery program. However, the panel also expressed concern about the risk of relapse and emphasized the need for Scheuerle to maintain his recovery support system.
Ongoing Oversight
Under MCR 9.111(C)(3), the panel retains jurisdiction over the disciplinary order, which enables it to monitor Scheuerle’s compliance with recovery-related conditions.
Conclusion
As a result of these proceedings, John R. Scheuerle has been formally reprimanded and assessed costs in the amount of $1,146.32. The case underscores the importance of professional responsibility and the role of mitigating efforts—particularly in cases involving substance dependency—in disciplinary outcomes.
Have a tip on attorney misconduct? Submit it to clutch at hello@clutchjustice.com
