Quick Facts
Daniel Reid Casey, P 75533, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.
One-year suspension from the practice of law.
A criminal conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired, combined with failure to notify disciplinary authorities and failure to respond to a request for investigation.
No. Default was entered, and the attorney failed to appear at the hearing.
Yes. Costs of $2,121.70 were imposed.
Case Information
- Attorney: Daniel Reid Casey (P 75533)
- Case Nos.: 25-068-JC; 25-069-GA
- County: Chippewa
- City: Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
- Discipline: One-Year Suspension
- Effective Date: October 17, 2025
Discipline Summary
The Attorney Discipline Board ordered the one-year suspension of Daniel Reid Casey’s Michigan law license following a criminal conviction and multiple violations of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct related to non-cooperation with disciplinary authorities.
The suspension was made effective October 17, 2025, the date of Casey’s interim suspension.
Applicable Court Rules
This matter proceeded under the Michigan Court Rules governing criminal convictions, disciplinary reporting obligations, and attorney misconduct, including:
- MCR 9.120(A)(1) – Duty to report criminal convictions
- MCR 9.120(B)(3) – Notice of judgment of conviction
- MCR 9.115(H)(1) – Interim suspension
- MCR 9.113(A), (B)(2) – Duty to answer requests for investigation
- MCR 9.104(1)–(7) – Grounds for discipline
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct implicated included:
- MRPC 8.1(a)(2) – Failure to respond to lawful demand for information
- MRPC 8.4(a), (b), (c) – Professional misconduct
\As with all discipline matters, this action falls under Michigan Court Rules, Chapter 9, including the Attorney Discipline Board’s authority under MCR 9.115.
Underlying Conduct
The Grievance Administrator filed a combined notice of filing of judgment of conviction and formal complaint.
The notice advised that Casey was convicted by guilty plea of operating a motor vehicle while impaired, a misdemeanor, in violation of MCL 257.625(3)(a), in People v Daniel Reid Casey, Case No. 24-68099-SD-1, 91st District Court.
The formal complaint further alleged that Casey failed to:
- Provide required notice of his criminal conviction to the Attorney Discipline Board and Attorney Grievance Commission, and
- Respond to a lawful request for investigation.
Hearing Panel Findings
Casey did not file an answer to the formal complaint. A default was entered by the Grievance Administrator on September 9, 2025.
Casey also failed to appear at the disciplinary hearing conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and MCR 9.120. As a result, the panel entered an order of interim suspension, effective October 17, 2025.
Following the proceedings, Emmet County Hearing Panel #2 found that Casey committed professional misconduct by:
- Engaging in conduct that violated a criminal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b)
- Knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from a disciplinary authority, in violation of MRPC 8.1(a)(2)
- Failing to answer the request for investigation, in violation of MCR 9.113(A), (B)(2) and MCR 9.104(7)
- Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, exposing the legal profession to reproach, and violating professional conduct standards, in violation of MCR 9.104(1)–(4) and MRPC 8.4(a), (c)
Sanction
The hearing panel ordered that Daniel Reid Casey’s license to practice law be suspended for one year, effective October 17, 2025.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $2,121.70.
Why This Matters
This case illustrates how criminal conduct and non-cooperation independently and collectively drive attorney discipline.
Even misdemeanor convictions trigger mandatory reporting obligations. Failure to notify disciplinary authorities — and failure to respond to investigative requests — frequently results in escalation, default, and harsher sanctions than the underlying offense alone.
The disciplinary system depends on attorney participation. When that participation does not occur, the process proceeds without it.
