IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COURT
 
IN THE MATTER OF
JASON M. LILE,
MCN BAR NO. 1047
 
Case No.: GVA-2024-03
July 10, 2025

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE

Pursuant to Chapter 5 of the Rules Governing the M(C)N Bar Association and Attorney Professional Conduct [hereinafter the "Rules" or, when addressing a specific rule, as the "Ruic"], a grievance investigation was conducted by the Court's Bar Counsel for Professional Responsibility and a Report and Recommendation was submitted for consideration by the Court on February 7, 2025, recommending that the Court take disciplinary action against the Respondent, Jason M. Lile. Pursuant to Rule 5-8, a show-cause hearing was scheduled on June 27, 2025, for the Respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be imposed. The Court, taking into consideration the allegations of the grievant, the investigative report of the Bar Counsel for Professional Responsibility, the response(s) of the Respondent to all allegations, and all mitigating circumstances, issues the following Order for Attorney Discipline.

RESPONDENT IS SUSPENDED FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW FOR TWELVE (12) MONTHS COMMENCING ON JULY 10, 2025; RESPONDENT SHALL COMPLETE TEN (10) ADDITIONAL HOURS OF ETHICS CLE CREDIT WITHIN TWELVE (12) MONTHS AND PROVIDE CERTIFICATES TO THE CLERK OF THE MCN SUPREME COURT; RESPONDENT SHALL REPORT THIS ORDER TO ALL PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS; RESPONDENT SHALL RE-ISSUE CHECK/MAKE PAYMENT FOR 2025 MCN BAR DUES AND REMAIN UP-TO-DATE ON PAYMENT OF BAR DUES DURING SUSPENSION; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE DISBARRMENT. THIS ORDER/REPRIMAND SHALL BE MADE PUBLIC.

Before: ADAMS, C.J.; LERBLANCE, V.C.J.; DEER, HARJO-WARE, MCNAC, SUPERNAW, THOMPSON, JJ.

HARJO-WARE, J. abstaining from the decision due to illness.

 

BACKGROUND

The Respondent, Jason M. Lile, was admitted to the Oklahoma Bar Association in April of 2006, and has nineteen (19) years of experience in the areas of criminal, family, and probate law. He was admitted to practice law within the Courts of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation on November 12, 2020, and, with the exception of a brief suspension for failure to pay bar dues in 2021, has no previous disciplinary history with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Bar Association. On October 30, 2024, a Grievance Form for Attorney Professional Misconduct was submitted to the Clerk of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court, by the Grievant, Matthew J. Hall, a prosecutor with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Office of the Attorney General.

Grievance

In July of 2024, the Respondent was hired by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to work with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma as a Special Assistant United States Attorney (SAUSA). The Respondent was given an official start date of August 13, 2024, in order to provide him sufficient time to wind-down his private practice and to give his private practice clients sufficient time to locate replacement counsel before assuming his new position with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. Under this role, the Respondent was to act as a liaison between federal and tribal prosecutors in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma;1 a case which dramatically increased criminal prosecution of Indian defendants in federal and tribal courts. It was the Respondent's understanding (at the time of hiring) that, while he would be employed by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, his office would be in Tulsa, Oklahoma, within the U.S. Attorney's office for the Northern District of Oklahoma. However, the Respondent was subsequently notified (after assuming the role) that this position would require that he split in-office time between the U.S. Attorney's office in Tulsa, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General's office in Okmulgee, an issue the Respondent asserts influenced his decision to resign his position with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation on September 27, 2024.2

Shortly after accepting the SAUSA position, the Respondent was advised by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General that he must withdraw from all of his private-practice cases pending before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Courts, including his representation of criminal defendant, Elijah Johnson (MCN District Court Case Number CF-2022-1019).

While the Respondent was awaiting completion of his federal background check, and for a Memorandum of Understanding to be adopted between the federal and tribal sovereigns outlining his specific duties, the Respondent was given a selection of tribal cases to review for potential transfer to the U.S. federal courts for prosecution. During this waiting period, the Respondent attempted to communicate directly with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General and two (2) Assistant Muscogee (Creek) Nation Prosecutors concerning the Elijah Johnson criminal matter, advising each that he "had done an extensive amount of work interviewing collateral witnesses in that case"3 and felt the matter should be dismissed.

On September 25, 2024, the Respondent appeared before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court in the Elijah Johnson criminal matter, and advised the Court that he had a conflict of interest (due to his new employment with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation), and requested that the Court grant additional time for Defendant Johnson to secure replacement counsel. The Respondent advised the Court that he would need to withdraw from the case, but no Motion to Withdraw was filed with the Court at this time.4

Two days later (on September 27, 2024) the Respondent notified the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General's office that he was resigning from his SAUSA position with the Nation/U.S. Attorney. According to the Respondent, this was due in-part to the misunderstanding concerning the physical location of his office (as explained above) and in-part due to a disagreement with a Muscogee (Creek) Nation's human-resources officer concerning allegedly unearned compensation that the Respondent was advised would need to be reimbursed to the Nation.5

On October 23, 2024, the Respondent again appeared before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court on behalf of criminal defendant Elijah Johnson. However, instead of submitting a Motion to Withdraw, as he previously indicated on September 25th, the Respondent advised the Court that he would continue as lead counsel in the case, despite the conflict of interest that had been created via his employment with the Nation.

Following the Respondent's resignation from the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General's office, it was discovered through a review of the Nation's case-management software, that (while employed with the Nation) the Respondent accessed prosecutor files in the Elijah Johnson criminal case on at least two (2) occasions 6. The electronic access logs show that the Respondent accessed "most all"7 documents contained in the case-file. The Respondent admits that, while employed with the Nation as a SAUSA, he accessed certain discoverable documents in the Elijah Johnson criminal case through the Nation's case-management system, though he claims no attorney work-product files were ever viewed.

On November 13, 2024, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed a Motion to Disqualify Attorney in the Elijah Johnson criminal matter, requesting the immediate disqualification of the Respondent as counsel of record in said action, due in-part to the conflict of interest created by the Respondent's employment with the Nation, and also due to the Respondent's unauthorized access of the Elijah Johnson case-file while employed by the Nation.

No response was ever filed by the Respondent to the Nation's November 13, 2024, Motion to Disqualify Attorney, and no Motion to Withdraw from the Elijah Johnson criminal matter was ever submitted by the Respondent.

On January 27, 2025, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court issued a Default Order Disqualifying Attorney in the Elijah Johnson criminal matter, disqualifying the Respondent "from representing Elijah Johnson, as specifically requested by the Attorney General's Office."8

 

II. ANALYSIS

Through its investigation, the Court has identified five (5) model rules 9 of professional conduct that are implicated by the Respondent's actions. They are as follows:

1.  Model Rule 1.7 -- Conflict of Interest: Current Client, "(a)... a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or, (2) there is significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer."

A lawyer owes a duty of loyalty and independent judgment to current clients. Due to the Respondent's failure to withdraw from the Elijah Johnson criminal matter, the Respondent owed these duties (concurrently) to both the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, via his employment with the Office of the Attorney General, and to Elijah Johnson, as counsel of record in Mr. Johnson's criminal action. As provided by comment 4 of Model Rule 1.7, "[i]f a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has obtained the informed consent of the client under the conditions of paragraph (b)." In this action, the Respondent failed to withdraw from Mr. Johnson's criminal case after accepting new employed with the Nation, and failed to obtain the informed written consent of each affected client, as required by Model Rule 1.7 (b)(4).

2. Model Rule 1.9 -- Conflict of Interest: Duties to Former Clients, "(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing."

"After termination of a client-lawyer relationship, a lawyer has certain continuing duties with respect to confidentiality and conflicts of interest and thus may not represent another client except in conformity with this Rule."10 While the Respondent describes to the Court a grey area in which the Respondent alleges he was unsure who his true employer was (whether it be the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma or the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General), it is clear to this Court that the Respondent was interviewed by the Nation, was selected for employment by the Nation, was given employee access to the Nation's resources, and was allowed to access the Nation's private case-management system, all to conduct work on behalf of the Nation. Based on these actions, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General would be justified in believing an attorney-client relationship existed between the Respondent and the Nation. As such, Model Rule 1.9 would prohibit the Respondent from "representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter... " absent informed written consent. In this action, the Respondent (1) never withdrew from representation of Mr. Johnson in his criminal action, despite receiving clear instruction by the Nation to do so, and (2) did not obtain the informed written consent of the Nation to continue representing Mr. Johnson (a criminal defendant in a criminal action in which the Muscogee (Creek) Nation is the opposing party) after ending his employment with the Nation. The Respondent's actions are even more overtly problematic considering his unauthorized review of the Elijah Johnson case-file on the Nation's electronic case-management system. Simply put, Model Rule 1.9 requires the informed written consent of the former client before a lawyer may represent a materially adverse party in a later action. The Respondent failed to obtain the written consent of the Nation before continuing his representation in the Elijah Johnson criminal matter.

3. Model Rule 1.11 -- Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees, "(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government: (1) is subject to Rule 1.9 (c); and (2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation." And, "(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee, may not represent a private client whose interest are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. As used in this Rule, the term "confidential government information" means information that has been obtained under governmental authority and which, at the time this Rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose and which is not otherwise available to the public. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.

Model Rule 1.11 represents a balancing of interests, to prevent abuse by the lawyer, while also not restricting the lawyer's opportunities for future employment.11 In this respect, the Model Rule acts to prevent "unfair advantage [that] could accrue to the other client by reason of access to confidential government information... obtainable only through the lawyer's government service[,]"12 and to "prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of another client."13 The Respondent admits that he accessed certain non-public, confidential government information concerning the prosecution of Elijah Johnson. Even if the Court takes the Respondent at his word that he did not view any attorney work-product documentation on the Nation's case-management software, the remaining documents he does admits to viewing (while potentially available to Defendant Johnson through discovery) were confidential and would not be available to public. The Court is most concerned with the Respondent's conduct as it relates to Model Rule 1.11. The Respondent abused his position with the Nation, and obtained an unfair advantage in subsequent litigation, by intentionally accessing electronic case-files (wholly unassociated with his work as a SAUSA liaison) concerning a client the Respondent had yet to withdraw his representation from. The Respondent then left the Nation's employment and resumed representation of the client, having garnered information only available to the Respondent through his government service.

4. Model Rule 1.16 -- Declining or Terminating Representation, "(a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if: (1) The representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law[.]"

The Respondent had a duty to withdraw from representation of Elijah Johnson upon accepting new employment with the Nation. That duty continued following the Respondent's resignation.

5. Model Rule 3.3 -- Candor Toward the Tribunal. "(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer[.]"

"This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process... the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false."14 On September 25, 2024, the Respondent appeared before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court and advised the tribunal that a conflict of interest existed, due to the Respondent's new employment with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General's Office. Further, the Respondent advised the Court that his intentions were to immediately submit a Motion to Withdraw in the case. No Motion to Withdraw was ever filed by the Respondent and, despite the Respondent's claims that a conflict of interest existed, the Respondent continued his representation in the matter until being forcibly terminated via a Default Order Disqualifying Attorney, filed on January 27, 2025, over four (4) months after initially advising the Court of the conflict. The Respondent misled the Court by either (1) providing a false statement of fact concerning his intentions to withdraw, or (2) by failing to subsequently correct a false statement of fact, explaining to the tribunal why a conflict of interest no longer (or never) existed. The Respondent had various options to correct this false statement of fact. The Respondent could have followed-though with his stated intentions and filed a Motion to Withdraw from further representation of Mr. Johnson. The Respondent could have filed a Notice with the Court at any time during the course of these proceedings correcting his prior statement. The Respondent could have addressed the Court in-person at the October 23, 2024, setting. The Respondent could have filed a Response to the Nation's November 13, 2024, Motion to Disqualify Attorney. However, the Respondent did nothing, and allowed the false statement of fact to remain uncorrected.

In summary, the Court finds that the Respondent knowingly or negligently violated all of the above-referenced Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The Respondent admits in his response that he continued representing his private-practice client, Elijah Johnson, in a criminal matter before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court while simultaneously being employed by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Attorney General, who was prosecuting Mr. Johnson's criminal case. The Respondent admits that he accessed the prosecution's electronic case-file concerning Mr. Johnson on multiple occasions while employed with the Nation, and while also remaining attorney-of-record in Mr. Johnson's criminal case. The Respondent knew, or should have known, that accessing Mr. Johnson's electronic case-file, while employed by the Nation, and having not withdrawn from his private-practice case, was improper and unethical. Further, the Respondent continued to represent Mr. Johnson, and made false statements of fact to the tribunal concerning his conflict of interest, until the Court forced his removal from the case via a Default Order Disqualifying Attorney, filed on January 27, 2025. Based on this finding, the Court finds that discipline is warranted in this action.

III. MITIGATING FACTS

The Respondent appeared before the Court on June 27, 2025, and freely answered all questions concerning his actions in late 2024. The Respondent appeared genuinely contrite, and repeatedly advised the Court that he reviews his actions in this matter under two lenses. Under the first lens he sees the matter as it was in the moment. He represents to this Court that he viewed his actions at that time as in-furtherance of Justice; that he wanted to ensure his client (Mr. Johnson) was able to secure replacement counsel, and he also felt his knowledge of the case could help the Attorney General's office save valuable resources. Under the second lens, the Respondent views the matter objectively, and understands that his actions may not have been in-line with the Court's ethical standards. The Respondent asks this Court to take into consideration his sole source of employment stems from his ability to practice law, and that, due to the Nation's reciprocity with the State of Oklahoma, a disciplinary Order from this Court could also impact the Respondent's ability to practice law in other jurisdictions outside of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The Court places all-due weight on these mitigating circumstances.

IV. CONCLUSION

Following review of the Grievance Form for Attorney Professional Misconduct, submitted by Matthew J. Hall on October 30, 2024, the investigation record compiled by the Bar Counsel for Professional Responsibility, the Report and Recommendation submitted by the Bar Counsel for Professional Responsibility on February 7, 2025, and the oral statements present to the Court by the Respondent during the Court's Show-Cause Hearing on June 27, 2025, the Court issues the following Order:

1. The Respondent is suspended from the practice of law within the Courts of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation for twelve (12) months, commencing on July 10, 2025,
2. The Respondent shall complete ten (10) additional hours of ethics CLE credit. These ten (10) hours are in addition to the Respondent's yearly ethics CLE requirements. The Respondent shall submit certificates of completion to the Clerk of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court within twelve (12) months of this Order.
3. The Respondent shall report this Order to all professional organization in which he is a member, specifically any federal or state Bar Association in which the Respondent is member. The Respondent shall submit a copy of a Certificate of Service to the Clerk of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Supreme Court within thirty (30) days of this Order, evidencing delivery of this Order to the Oklahoma Bar Association, Office of General Counsel, Gina L. Hendryx, at P.O. Box 53036, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152.
4. During the pendency of this grievance action, the Court elected not to cash the Respondent's 2025 MCN Bar dues and late fee check (submitted after the 2025 due payment deadline on March 10, 2025, in the amount of fifty dollars). The Respondent shall resubmit payment in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for 2025 MCN Bar dues and late fee within thirty (30) days of this Order, and ensure that all MCN Bar dues are timely paid during the Respondent's suspension.
5. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order shall result in the immediate disbarment of the Respondent from the MCN Bar Association.
6. This Order shall also represent a public reprimand, and will be made available on the Court's website.

 

FILED AND ENTERED: July 10, 2025

/s/ Andrew Adams, III
Andrew Adams, III
Chief Justice
 
/s/ Richard Lerblance
Richard Lerblance
Vice-Chief Justice
 
/s/ Montie Deer
Montie Deer
Associate Justice
 
/s/ Amos McNac
Amos McNac
Associate Justice
 
/s/ Kathleen Supernaw
Kathleen Supernaw
Associate Justice
 
/s/ George Thompson, Jr.
George Thompson, Jr.
Associate Justice