The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has suspended Nicholas A. Tselepis (P80909) of Caro, Michigan, for 30 days, effective August 27, 2025, and imposed conditions relevant to the established misconduct.
The suspension followed hearings conducted under Michigan Court Rule 9.115, which governs attorney discipline proceedings.
Background: Public Statements About a Criminal Matter
According to the notice, Tselepis was involved in an investigation of a criminal matter and later made public statements about that matter in two separate communications intended for dissemination to the public in Menominee County:
- A published letter to the editor, and
- An email to the Menominee County Democratic Party listserv.
Following evidentiary hearings, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #2 found that these communications constituted professional misconduct because they included extrajudicial statements about an ongoing criminal matter intended to reach the public.
Misconduct Findings
The hearing panel found that Tselepis violated MRPC 3.6(a)(4) and (5), which regulate extrajudicial statements that may materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding.
Specifically, the panel found that the letter and email included statements that:
- Referred to a criminal matter,
- Referenced the character, credibility, and reputation of a party and an uncharged third party,
- Referenced inadmissible evidence concerning a defendant’s past criminal record, and
- Referred to the defendant’s guilt without a qualifying reference to the presumption of innocence.
Panel Order and Sanctions
Based on the findings, the panel ordered that:
- Tselepis’s license to practice law in Michigan be suspended for 30 days, effective August 27, 2025.
- Tselepis be subject to conditions relevant to the established misconduct.
- Tselepis pay costs in the amount of $6,411.76.
What This Means
Michigan’s rules restricting extrajudicial statements are designed to protect the fairness of criminal proceedings and preserve public confidence in the legal system. When attorneys speak publicly about criminal matters in ways that attack credibility, introduce inadmissible information, or suggest guilt without acknowledging the presumption of innocence, discipline can follow.
This case is a reminder that public commentary about pending or investigated criminal matters carries ethical limits, even when delivered through political channels or public-facing media.
