Weaver, J.
Plaintiff-appellant, the Grievance Administrator, representing the Attorney Grievance Commission and the State of Michigan, appeals the Attorney Discipline Board’s affirmance of three independent hearing panel decisions to dismiss disciplinary proceedings against respondents Marvin G. Deutch and Vickey O. Howell for their respective operating while impaired (“drunk driving”) convictions under MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325.
We granted leave to determine whether these hearing panels had the authority to dismiss the disciplinary proceedings when the panels found that drunk driving did not, facially, reflect adversely on an attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer under MRPC 8.4(b).
We hold that hearing panels do not have the authority to dismiss disciplinary proceedings at an ini[153]*153tial misconduct hearing, which determines the existence of professional misconduct,1 when the Grievance Administrator provides proof of a violation of MCR 9.104(5) with a judgment of conviction of misdemeanor drunk driving. However, we further hold that at the second-stage hearing, which determines the level of discipline,2 hearing panels do have the discretion to issue orders of discipline appropriate to the specific facts of a case, including orders that effectively impose no discipline. Such disciplinary orders, however, can be issued only after a finding of misconduct at the initial hearing and after both parties have had an opportunity to present “any and all relevant evidence of aggravation or mitigation” at the second hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse the board’s decisions that held the administrator failed to establish misconduct at the initial hearings for Deutch and Howell. We find that the judgment of conviction filings against Deutch and Howell for their respective drunk driving convictions constituted “misconduct” under MCR 9.104(5), regardless of whether these convictions, on their face, reflect adversely on the attorneys’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyers under MRPC 8.4(b).
We remand these disciplinary proceedings against respondents Deutch and Howell to the board for appointment of hearing panels to determine the appropriate level of discipline to impose and to enter orders of discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(J)(1) and (3).
[154]*154I
RESPONDENT DEUTCH
On July 28, 1993, Deutch was convicted of a misdemeanor for operation of a motor vehicle while visibly impaired, a violation of West Bloomfield Township Ordinance 5.15-22 and MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325.
In May, 1994, the Grievance Administrator commenced disciplinary actions against Deutch pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3) by filing a judgment of conviction for drunk driving, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment, with the board.3 Pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3), the board issued Deutch an order to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered against him. In response, Deutch filed a motion to dismiss.
On June 14, 1994, Hearing Panel No. 58 unanimously granted Deutch’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Panel 58 concluded that Deutch’s conviction under a local drunk driving ordinance did not constitute misconduct because it was not an adverse reflection on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and was “certainly” de minimis misconduct “at most.”
[155]*155RESPONDENT HOWELL
Respondent Howell had two drunk driving convictions, each separated by less than a year. In fact, her second conviction occurred while she was still on probation for the first and constituted an express violation of her probationary terms.
Howell was initially convicted, by a guilty plea, on June 22, 1992, of misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while impaired, a crime punishable by imprisonment under Bloomfield Township Ordinance 5.15 and MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325. The disciplinary proceedings against Howell were not initiated immediately in response to this conviction. Rather, the administrator waited to pursue disciplinary action until Howell, while still on probation for the first offense, received a second drunk driving conviction on June 9, 1993.
On March 16, 1994 the administrator filed a judgment of conviction with the board, MCR 9.120(B)(3), for the 1992 drunk driving offense. On May 31, 1994, the administrator filed a judgment of conviction with the board for Howell’s 1993 drunk driving conviction.
On July 29, 1994, panel 76 dismissed with prejudice the disciplinary proceedings based on the 1992 conviction. On September 12, 1994, panel 75 dismissed, again with prejudice, the disciplinary proceedings against Howell for her 1993 conviction. As in Deutch’s case, both panels found that the drunk driving convictions did not reflect adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer under MRPC 8.4(b).
Panel 75 refused to consider Howell’s prior conviction and the fact that she had violated her probation terms because the administrator had filed a judgment [156]*156of conviction under MCR 9.120(B)(3). Because the administrator did not bring a formal complaint against Howell that specifically alleged that she was a recidivist and had violated the express terms of her probation, panel 75 reasoned that it could only consider the isolated fact of the single 1993 misdemeanor conviction.4
APPELLATE REVIEW
The administrator appealed to the board to vacate the respective dismissal orders. In each case, the board affirmed the hearing panels’ dismissals and found that the drunk driving convictions did not constitute misconduct because misdemeanor drunk driving convictions, standing alone, did not reflect adversely on the attorneys’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. With respect to Howell, the board also affirmed panel 75’s determination that her prior conviction and probation violation were not material because the administrator initiated and based the disciplinary proceedings on the judgment of conviction, pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3).
n
In determining the propriety of the board’s decision, we must address three issues: first, whether hearing panels have authority to dismiss disciplinary actions at the misconduct hearing where the administrator files a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor drunk driving; second, the relationship between MCR [157]*1579.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b); and, third, whether Deutch and Howell committed misconduct. We address each issue in turn.
A
To determine whether hearing panels have authority to dismiss disciplinary actions when the administrator has filed a judgment of conviction, we must consider the respective roles of the Attorney Grievance Commission and of the Attorney Discipline Board. The Michigan Court Rules, promulgated by this Court in furtherance of our duty to govern the legal profession,5 provide the following regarding the standard of conduct for Michigan attorneys:
The license to practice law in Michigan is, among other things, a continuing proclamation by the Supreme Court that the holder is fit to be entrusted with professional and judicial matters and to aid in the administration of justice as an attorney and counselor and as an officer of the court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Weaver, J.
Plaintiff-appellant, the Grievance Administrator, representing the Attorney Grievance Commission and the State of Michigan, appeals the Attorney Discipline Board’s affirmance of three independent hearing panel decisions to dismiss disciplinary proceedings against respondents Marvin G. Deutch and Vickey O. Howell for their respective operating while impaired (“drunk driving”) convictions under MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325.
We granted leave to determine whether these hearing panels had the authority to dismiss the disciplinary proceedings when the panels found that drunk driving did not, facially, reflect adversely on an attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer under MRPC 8.4(b).
We hold that hearing panels do not have the authority to dismiss disciplinary proceedings at an ini[153]*153tial misconduct hearing, which determines the existence of professional misconduct,1 when the Grievance Administrator provides proof of a violation of MCR 9.104(5) with a judgment of conviction of misdemeanor drunk driving. However, we further hold that at the second-stage hearing, which determines the level of discipline,2 hearing panels do have the discretion to issue orders of discipline appropriate to the specific facts of a case, including orders that effectively impose no discipline. Such disciplinary orders, however, can be issued only after a finding of misconduct at the initial hearing and after both parties have had an opportunity to present “any and all relevant evidence of aggravation or mitigation” at the second hearing.
Accordingly, we reverse the board’s decisions that held the administrator failed to establish misconduct at the initial hearings for Deutch and Howell. We find that the judgment of conviction filings against Deutch and Howell for their respective drunk driving convictions constituted “misconduct” under MCR 9.104(5), regardless of whether these convictions, on their face, reflect adversely on the attorneys’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyers under MRPC 8.4(b).
We remand these disciplinary proceedings against respondents Deutch and Howell to the board for appointment of hearing panels to determine the appropriate level of discipline to impose and to enter orders of discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(J)(1) and (3).
[154]*154I
RESPONDENT DEUTCH
On July 28, 1993, Deutch was convicted of a misdemeanor for operation of a motor vehicle while visibly impaired, a violation of West Bloomfield Township Ordinance 5.15-22 and MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325.
In May, 1994, the Grievance Administrator commenced disciplinary actions against Deutch pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3) by filing a judgment of conviction for drunk driving, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment, with the board.3 Pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3), the board issued Deutch an order to show cause why a final order of discipline should not be entered against him. In response, Deutch filed a motion to dismiss.
On June 14, 1994, Hearing Panel No. 58 unanimously granted Deutch’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. Panel 58 concluded that Deutch’s conviction under a local drunk driving ordinance did not constitute misconduct because it was not an adverse reflection on his honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer, and was “certainly” de minimis misconduct “at most.”
[155]*155RESPONDENT HOWELL
Respondent Howell had two drunk driving convictions, each separated by less than a year. In fact, her second conviction occurred while she was still on probation for the first and constituted an express violation of her probationary terms.
Howell was initially convicted, by a guilty plea, on June 22, 1992, of misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while impaired, a crime punishable by imprisonment under Bloomfield Township Ordinance 5.15 and MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325. The disciplinary proceedings against Howell were not initiated immediately in response to this conviction. Rather, the administrator waited to pursue disciplinary action until Howell, while still on probation for the first offense, received a second drunk driving conviction on June 9, 1993.
On March 16, 1994 the administrator filed a judgment of conviction with the board, MCR 9.120(B)(3), for the 1992 drunk driving offense. On May 31, 1994, the administrator filed a judgment of conviction with the board for Howell’s 1993 drunk driving conviction.
On July 29, 1994, panel 76 dismissed with prejudice the disciplinary proceedings based on the 1992 conviction. On September 12, 1994, panel 75 dismissed, again with prejudice, the disciplinary proceedings against Howell for her 1993 conviction. As in Deutch’s case, both panels found that the drunk driving convictions did not reflect adversely on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer under MRPC 8.4(b).
Panel 75 refused to consider Howell’s prior conviction and the fact that she had violated her probation terms because the administrator had filed a judgment [156]*156of conviction under MCR 9.120(B)(3). Because the administrator did not bring a formal complaint against Howell that specifically alleged that she was a recidivist and had violated the express terms of her probation, panel 75 reasoned that it could only consider the isolated fact of the single 1993 misdemeanor conviction.4
APPELLATE REVIEW
The administrator appealed to the board to vacate the respective dismissal orders. In each case, the board affirmed the hearing panels’ dismissals and found that the drunk driving convictions did not constitute misconduct because misdemeanor drunk driving convictions, standing alone, did not reflect adversely on the attorneys’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. With respect to Howell, the board also affirmed panel 75’s determination that her prior conviction and probation violation were not material because the administrator initiated and based the disciplinary proceedings on the judgment of conviction, pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(3).
n
In determining the propriety of the board’s decision, we must address three issues: first, whether hearing panels have authority to dismiss disciplinary actions at the misconduct hearing where the administrator files a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor drunk driving; second, the relationship between MCR [157]*1579.104(5) and MRPC 8.4(b); and, third, whether Deutch and Howell committed misconduct. We address each issue in turn.
A
To determine whether hearing panels have authority to dismiss disciplinary actions when the administrator has filed a judgment of conviction, we must consider the respective roles of the Attorney Grievance Commission and of the Attorney Discipline Board. The Michigan Court Rules, promulgated by this Court in furtherance of our duty to govern the legal profession,5 provide the following regarding the standard of conduct for Michigan attorneys:
The license to practice law in Michigan is, among other things, a continuing proclamation by the Supreme Court that the holder is fit to be entrusted with professional and judicial matters and to aid in the administration of justice as an attorney and counselor and as an officer of the court. It is the duty of every attorney to conduct himself or herself at aU times in conformity with standards imposed on members of the bar as a condition of the privilege to practice law. These standards include, but are not limited to, the rules of professional responsibility and the rules of judicial conduct that are adopted by the Supreme Court. [MCR 9.103(A) (emphasis added).]
When an attorney violates either the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct, MRPC 1.0 et seq., or the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, which includes in relevant part MCR 9.101 et seq. regarding [158]*158professional disciplinary proceedings, that attorney is subject to the professional disciplinary process.6 This process has been carefully crafted by this Court to most effectively discharge our duty to regulate the judiciary and the legal community.
To ensure fairness and effectiveness in the disciplinary process, this Court deliberately created a bifurcated disciplinary agency in which the prosecutorial and quasi-judicial branches are separate and distinct. According to MCR 9.108(A), the Attorney Grievance Commission serves as the “prosecution arm of the Supreme Court for discharge of its constitutional responsibility to supervise and discipline Michigan attorneys.” The Attorney Grievance Commission has the power to “supervise the investigation of attorney misconduct, including requests for investigation of and complaints against attorneys . . . .” MCR 9.108(E)(2). The Grievance Administrator is the administrative head of the Attorney Grievance Commission.
The institutional “check” on the prosecutorial branch is the quasi-judicial branch, the board, which acts as the “adjudicative arm of the Supreme Court” in discharging this Court’s duty to supervise Michigan attorneys. MCR 9.110(A). The board appoints hearing panels under MCR 9.110(E)(2) and, further, reviews a final order of discipline or dismissal issued by hearing panels. MCR 9.110(E)(4). The court rules specifically provide that the board has the power and duty to:
(5) discipline and reinstate attorneys under the rules;
[159]*159(6) file with the Supreme Court clerk its orders of suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement .... [MCR 9.110(E)(5), (6).]
This bifurcation of the disciplinary system arguably promotes institutional competency and efficiency, allowing each division to concentrate on one aspect of the disciplinary process, but also serves as an important check and balance on the activity of each branch. The board and hearing panels independently review each case to insure discipline is required to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession. The administrator can maintain its focus and energy in bringing all deserving actions forward.
For similar reasons, Michigan’s attorney discipline process has been divided so that each disciplinary proceeding involves two stages, or two separate hearings. The initial hearing establishes the existence of professional misconduct and the second hearing determines the level of discipline appropriate in light of any mitigating or aggravating factors in the particular case. MCR 9.115(J)(3).
i
In this case, three hearing panels dismissed the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the administrator against respondents for their respective drunk driving convictions at the misconduct hearing. The board affirmed, finding that the hearing panels had the authority to summarily dismiss disciplinary proceedings even where the administrator offered, as proof of misconduct under MCR 9.104(5), a judgment of conviction pursuant to MCR 9.120(B)(2).
[160]*160We find that the board’s practice is contrary to the express procedure provided by the court rules. MCR 9.104 provides in relevant part:
The following acts or omissions by an attorney, individually or in concert with another person, are misconduct and grounds for discipline, whether or not occurring in the course of an attorney-client relationship:
* * *
(5) conduct that violates a criminal law of a state or of the United States. [Emphasis added. ][7]
The administrator has two methods to initiate and prove disciplinary proceedings based on a violation of MCR 9.104(5): 8 the administrator may file a formal complaint pursuant to MCR 9.115(A) or a judgment of conviction under MCR 9.120(B)(2). MCR 9.120(B)(2) states in relevant part:
In a disciplinary proceeding instituted against an attorney based on the attorney’s conviction of a criminal offense, a certified copy of the judgment of conviction is conclusive proof of the commission of the criminal offense. [Emphasis added.]
[161]*161This procedure, the filing of a judgment of conviction, is an evidentiary tool that allows the prosecutorial branch, the administrator, to expeditiously dispose of a case already adjudicated in the courts. While the judgment is not conclusive proof that discipline must be imposed, it does establish a finding of misconduct under MCR 9.104(5) and that a second-phase discipline hearing is warranted under MCR 9.115(J)(2) and (3).
To protect the function of the filing of a judgment of conviction, MCR 9.120(B)(3) expressly provides that “[at] the hearing, questions as to the validity of the conviction, alleged trial errors, and the availability of appellate remedies shall not be considered.”9 While not expressly provided for by the court rules, the respondent is still free to move for a dismissal on the basis of other aspects of the conviction. Arguably, the respondent could challenge a finding of misconduct by claiming that the crime is not a violation of state or federal law; the crime does not carry the requisite penalty of punishment by imprisonment, fine, or other discipline; or the conviction was set aside or otherwise eliminated from the respondent’s record. Dismissal would only be appropriate if the hearing panel found such arguments to be persuasive. Otherwise, the administrator has proven, with the valid judgment of conviction, that respondent committed “misconduct.”10 Therefore, dismissal would be without author[162]*162ity and contrary to the requirements of MCR 9.115CJX1).11
As applied to Deutch and Howell, we hold that the instant hearing panels had no authority to dismiss the disciplinary actions because the administrator proffered valid judgments of conviction as proof of misconduct in each case.
In so holding, however, we note that while a panel has no authority to dismiss an action during the misconduct hearing when the administrator files a valid judgment of conviction, the requisite check on the administrator’s prosecutorial authority occurs at the second stage of hearing, where the panel determines the appropriate level of discipline. MCR 9.115(J)(3) does not require discipline where misconduct is established; rather, MCR 9.115(J)(3) requires a second hearing to determine the appropriate level of discipline, given all aggravating and mitigating factors. After considering such factors, the panel must then enter an order of discipline on a finding of “misconduct.” MCR 9.115(J)(3).
[163]*163Again, it should be noted that the order of discipline may, in fact, order no discipline at all.12 MCR 9.106 echoes the language in MCR 9.104, which states that a finding of “misconduct” is only “grounds for discipline,” not that a finding of misconduct requires the imposition of discipline in every case. Where notions of justice and fairness require, we hold that the order of discipline, required under MCR 9.115(J)(1) and (3), could include an order that effectively imposes no discipline on an attorney.13
B
The board also affirmed the hearing panels’ determinations that MCR 9.104(5) must be read in conjunction with MRPC 8.4(b), so that only criminal convictions that reflect adversely on an attorney’s hon[164]*164esty, trustworthiness, and fitness as a lawyer constitute “misconduct and grounds for discipline.” We disagree and hold that, as the text of the court rules expressly state, either a criminal conviction or a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct under MRPC 8.4(b) constitutes misconduct and grounds for discipline.14
In relevant part, MRPC 8.4(b) maintains that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to
engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or violation of the criminal law, where such conduct reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer . . . .[15]
[165]*165Contrary to respondents’ assertions, this provision does not farther limit MCR 9.104(5). The rules have different scopes and intents. MCR 9.104(5) specifically targets transgressions of the criminal law, while MRPC 8.4(b) focuses on conduct that reflects adversely on a person’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as an attorney, including but not limited to violations of the criminal law. The blanket prohibition of criminal conduct protects the professional from the appearance of impropriety and hypocrisy, while also attempting to protect the judicial system and the public by ferreting out undeserving officers of the court. MRPC 8.4(b) is a more direct prohibition against conduct that would affect an attorney’s legal practice, such as theft, or other conduct that undermines one’s trustworthiness and, therefore, one’s ability to effectively serve as a fiduciary. While the two prohibitions are not mutually exclusive, they are distinct and target different conduct.
This interpretation comports with statutory rules of construction. In interpreting and determining the relationship between MRPC 8.4(b) and MCR 9.120, this Court must avoid an interpretation that would render any provision surplusage or nugatory. Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 228; 507 NW2d 422 (1993), citing Stowers v Wolodzko, 386 Mich 119, 133; 191 NW2d 355 (1971). Moreover, the court rules should be interpreted “liberally . . . for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession . . . .” MCR 9.102(A).
Indeed, the court rules themselves provide literal, textual evidence of the difference between these prohibitions. The juxtaposition of MCR 9.104(4) and (5) illustrates that violations of criminal laws and [166]*166violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct are distinct forms of misconduct. The one does not limit the scope or application of the other. This Court drafted MCR 9.104 so that the Rules of Professional Conduct could, and in this case do, serve as an independent ground on which misconduct can be found and an order of discipline can be based.
c
With this in mind, we now evaluate the matters of Deutch and Howell separately in recognition that attorney misconduct cases are fact-sensitive inquiries that turn on the unique circumstances of each case.16 Moreover, in reviewing the board’s determination in each case, this Court must decide whether there exists proper evidentiary support on the whole record to sustain the board’s findings.17
Panel 58 dismissed Deutch’s misconduct charges by concluding:
[W]hile it is admirable to attempt to hold the legal profession to a higher standard of conduct than the general populous and, under certain circumstances, it may well, under the Michigan Code of Professional Conduct, be entitled to do so and discipline an attorney on that basis, your Panel does not believe that this is a case . . . which goes to [the] foundations of the practice of law. This ordinance violation caused no harm to anyone, except for the embarrassment and shame brought upon the Respondent Martin 6. Deutch.
[167]*167We reverse because drunk driving convictions are the type of violations of state law that constitute “misconduct” under MCR 9.104(5). Therefore, we find that the administrator proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Deutch committed an act of misconduct under MCR 9.104(5) when he filed the judgment of conviction for misdemeanor drunk driving. Accordingly, we remand to the board so that it can appoint a hearing panel to determine, according to MCR 9.115(J)(3), the appropriate level of discipline to impose in this case.
In so disposing of the case, we note that, had this hearing panel not summarily decided this case on the principle that drunk driving harms no one but the drunk driver, it may have discovered why the administrator chose to initiate disciplinary proceedings in this drunk driving case.18
[168]*168RESPONDENT HOWELL
Both panels dismissed Howell’s misconduct petition because they found that the misdemeanor drunk driving conviction, punishable by imprisonment under MCL 257.625; MSA 9.2325, did not reflect adversely on her “honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer . . . .” MRPC 8.4(b). We disagree and find that by filing a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor drunk driving, the administrator proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell committed misconduct under MCR 9.104(5) for both her 1992 and 1993 convictions. We remand to the board to appoint a panel to conduct a second-phase hearing according to MCR 9.115(J)(3). During that hearing, the panel may fully consider Howell’s recidivism and probation violation, among other aggravating and mitigating factors.
In reviewing this case, we feel compelled to correct the following erroneous reasoning of Hearing Panel No. 75:
Other than the obvious fact that it is regretful, to say the least, that an attorney has violated the law, there is nothing per se offensive to the administration of justice or to the Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer in her conviction for OWI. This is especially so in the case at bar where the Respondent was at an after hours social event, with friends, unrelated to her status as an attorney, not on “company business,” and not acting in an official capacity in any way.
This Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that an attorney has a duty to act professionally only during business hours or while at work. “A lawyer is a professional ‘twenty-four hours a day, not eight hours, five days a week.’ ” In re Grimes, 414 Mich 483, 495; [169]*169326 NW2d 380 (1982), quoting State v Postorino, 53 Wis 2d 412, 419; 193 NW2d 1 (1972). “We cannot stress too strongly the responsibility of members of the bar to carry out their activities, both public and private, with circumspection.” In re Grimes, supra at 494.
m
In conclusion, we hold these hearing panels did not have the authority to dismiss the disciplinary proceedings against respondents Deutch and Howell where the administrator provided proof of a violation of MCR 9.104(5) by offering a judgment of conviction. The hearing panels are not absolved of their critical responsibility to carefully inquire into the specific facts of each case merely because the administrator initiates disciplinary proceedings by filing a judgment of conviction, under MCR 9.120(B)(3), rather than by formal complaint under MCR 9.115(A).
Moreover, we hold that, at the second hearing referred to in MCR 9.115(J)(2), hearing panels have the discretion to issue orders of discipline under MCR 9.115(J)(3) that effectively impose no discipline on respondents. Such an order, however, can only be issued after a finding of misconduct under MCR 9.115(J)(1) and (2), and after both parties have an opportunity to present “any and all relevant evidence of aggravation or mitigation” under MCR 9.115(J)(3).
We reverse the board’s decisions with respect to both Deutch and Howell. We find that the filings of judgments of conviction against respondents Deutch and Howell for their respective drunk driving convictions evidenced “misconduct” under MCR 9.104(5), regardless of whether these convictions, on their face, [170]*170reflected adversely on the attorneys’ honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as lawyers under MRPC 8.4(b).
We, therefore, remand these disciplinary proceedings against Deutch and Howell to the board so that it can appoint panels to determine the appropriate level of discipline to impose and to enter orders of discipline pursuant to MCR 9.115(J)(3).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Brickley and Riley, JJ., concurred with Weaver, J.