Case Information
Attorney: Jesse J. Monville (P 66760)
Case Nos.: 25-036-AI; 25-041-JC; 25-042-GA
County: Ontonagon
City: White Pine, Michigan
Discipline: Disbarment
Effective Date: January 8, 2026
Quick Facts
Who is the attorney?
Jesse J. Monville, P 66760, White Pine, Michigan.
What discipline was imposed?
Disbarment from the practice of law.
Why was discipline imposed?
A federal felony conviction for possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and failure to notify disciplinary authorities of the conviction.
Did the attorney participate in the disciplinary process?
No. The matter proceeded in part by default after the respondent failed to answer the formal complaint.
Were costs assessed?
Yes. Costs of $1,997.80 were assessed.
Discipline Summary
The Attorney Discipline Board ordered the disbarment of Jesse J. Monville following a federal felony drug trafficking conviction and multiple violations of Michigan’s attorney disciplinary rules.
The disbarment became effective January 8, 2026, after proceedings before an Upper Peninsula hearing panel.
Applicable Court Rules
This matter proceeded under Michigan Court Rules and Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct governing criminal convictions, reporting obligations, and professional misconduct, including:
Michigan Court Rules
- MCR 9.120(B)(3) – Notice of judgment of conviction
- MCR 9.120(A)(1) – Duty to report criminal convictions
- MCR 9.104(1)–(5) – Grounds for discipline
- MCR 2.615 – Criminal law violations as grounds for discipline
Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
- MRPC 8.4(b) – Criminal conduct reflecting adversely on fitness
- MRPC 8.4(c) – Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice
As with all attorney 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 a Judgment of Conviction and Formal Complaint against Monville.
The notice advised that on or about October 8, 2020, Monville was convicted by guilty plea in United States of America v Jesse James Monville, Case No. 2:20-cr-6-01, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The conviction was for Possession With Intent to Deliver 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine, a felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
The formal complaint further alleged that Monville failed to provide written notice of his conviction to the Attorney Discipline Board and the Attorney Grievance Commission within 14 days of the acceptance of his plea, as required by MCR 9.120(A)(1).
Hearing Panel Findings
Following proceedings conducted pursuant to MCR 9.115 and MCR 9.120, Upper Peninsula Hearing Panel #1 found that Monville committed professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Filing of a Judgment of Conviction.
The panel further found that, by virtue of his default for failing to answer the formal complaint, Monville committed professional misconduct as alleged in the complaint in its entirety.
Specifically, the panel found that Monville:
- Engaged in conduct violating federal criminal law, in violation of MCR 9.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b)
- Failed to provide timely written notice of his conviction, in violation of MCR 9.120(A)(1)
- Engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, in violation of MCR 9.104(1) and MRPC 8.4(c)
- Exposed the legal profession and courts to reproach, in violation of MCR 9.104(2)
- Engaged in conduct contrary to justice, ethics, honesty, or good morals, in violation of MCR 9.104(3)
Sanction
The hearing panel ordered that Jesse J. Monville be disbarred, effective January 8, 2026.
Costs were assessed in the amount of $1,997.80.
Monville’s Michigan law license had been continuously suspended since May 14, 2018, pursuant to an interim suspension issued in Grievance Administrator v Jesse J. Monville, Case Nos. 17-140-JC; 17-141-GA.
Why This Matters
This case underscores how serious felony convictions, particularly those involving drug trafficking, result in the most severe professional sanction available under Michigan’s attorney discipline system.
It also highlights the independent importance of reporting obligations. Failure to notify disciplinary authorities of a conviction constitutes misconduct separate from the underlying criminal conduct and accelerates disciplinary consequences.
Disbarment in cases like this reflects the profession’s obligation to protect the public and maintain confidence in the integrity of the legal system.
