Michigan Attorney Daren Wiseley Suspended 180 Days Following Criminal Contempt and Multiple Convictions

Discipline Summary

Published: July 10, 2025 | Hillsdale, MI

Attorney Daren Wiseley (P85220) of Hillsdale, Michigan, has been suspended from the practice of law for 180 days, effective July 9, 2025, following a series of criminal convictions and misconduct findings including two separate criminal contempt findings, a battery conviction in Florida, and a domestic violence conviction in Michigan. Wiseley was also the Chairman of the Hillsdale County Republican Party at the time of his conduct.

The suspension comes after the Grievance Administrator filed a consolidated case (Nos. 24-102-JC, 24-103-GA, and 25-14-JC), which included both formal complaints and multiple judgments of conviction. The case was assigned to Washtenaw County Hearing Panel #3 and resolved through a Stipulation for Consent Order of Discipline under MCR 9.115(F)(5).

Pattern of Misconduct and Criminal Behavior

According to the panel’s findings, Wiseley was held in criminal contempt twice in March and April 2023 in Presque Isle County Circuit Court while representing a defendant in a jury trial. He was ordered to remain at the courthouse, was found absent and later discovered asleep nearby. After denying being under the influence, a breath test revealed a BAC of 0.15, prompting a second contempt proceeding for making a false statement to the court. He served 24 hours in jail.

Wiseley was also convicted of multiple misdemeanors: failure to report an accident to fixtures (Michigan, February 2024), battery (Florida, March 2024), and domestic violence (Michigan, February 2025). He failed to report any of these convictions to the Attorney Discipline Board or the Grievance Commission as required under MCR 9.120(A) and (B).

Ethical Violations Found

Why This Case Matters

The Wiseley matter involves a compounding pattern rarely consolidated into a single disciplinary proceeding: in-court conduct (contempt findings during active representation), off-duty criminal conduct across two states, and a separate reporting failure that would have shielded all of it from disciplinary authorities had it not been independently discovered. The failure to report is the structural element worth noting: it is a distinct obligation, and its breach represents an attempt to keep the disciplinary system uninformed about conduct it had a legal right to know about.