The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has suspended James M. Poniewierski (P73652) of Southfield, Michigan, for 30 days, effective August 1, 2025, following a consent discipline agreement stemming from a criminal conviction.
The suspension was imposed pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 9.115, which governs attorney discipline proceedings.
Background: Consent Discipline and Criminal Conviction
According to the notice, Poniewierski 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.
As part of the stipulation, Poniewierski admitted that he was convicted on November 29, 2021, by guilty plea, of Operating While Intoxicated, Second Offense, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625, in State of Michigan v James Poniewierski, 41B District Court, Case No. 21-3249SM.
The parties further stipulated that the conviction constituted professional misconduct and agreed that a 30-day suspension was appropriate. A supplemental filing established good cause for the suspension to take effect on August 1, 2025, which the panel approved.
Misconduct Findings
Based on the conviction, admissions, and stipulation, the hearing panel found that Poniewierski committed professional misconduct by:
- Engaging in conduct that violated a criminal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5).
- Engaging in conduct involving a violation of criminal law that reflects adversely on a lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, in violation of MRPC 8.4(b).
Panel Order and Sanctions
In accordance with the parties’ stipulation, the hearing panel ordered that:
- Poniewierski’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective August 1, 2025.
- Poniewierski pay costs in the amount of $807.26.
No additional conditions were imposed.
What This Means
Michigan’s attorney discipline rules treat certain criminal convictions as professional misconduct when they reflect adversely on a lawyer’s fitness to practice law. Even when resolved by consent, such cases result in public discipline and financial assessments.
This case illustrates how criminal conduct outside the practice of law can still trigger disciplinary consequences under Michigan’s professional standards.
