IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

IN THE MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT

IN THE MATTER OF ) GS

JASON M. LILE, ) Case No.: GVA-2024-03

MCN BAR NO. 1047 ) JUL 1 0 2025 swe

CONNIE DEARMAN

ORDER FOR ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE. oe CREEK) NATION

COURT CLERK

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 “Rule”],

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..; LERBLANCE, V.C./.; DEER, HARJO-WARE, MCNAC, SUPERNAW,

THOMPSON, JW.

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

Page | of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No, 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

I. 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 privatepractice 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;! 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-

' See, McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (July 9, 2020).

Page 2 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

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.?

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”? 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

2 See video transcript of Show-Cause Hearing, at 00:15:57, and page 2 of the Respondent’s November 8, 2024,

response letter to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Bar Counsel for Professional Responsibility.

3 See video transcript of Show-Cause Hearing, at 00:18:03, and at 00:40:50, as well as the October 20, 2024, Grievance

Form, statement of Grievant, wherein Grievant alleges Respondent advised “he has interviewed several witnesses

ancillary to the case and that this is a bad case and should be dismissed.”

Page 3 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

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.‘

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.>

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 25", 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®. The electronic access logs show that the

‘ See, video transcript of Show-Cause Hearing, at 00:22:18, wherein Respondent explains that no Motion to Withdraw

was filed on September 25, 2024, due in-part to the Respondent being “overloaded” and “busy” with the transfer to

his new employment with the Nation.

5 See, video transcript of Show-Cause Hearing, beginning at 00:25:20, wherein Respondent describes his conversation

with the Nation’s human resources employee, and how this interaction “upset [him] greatly.”

6 The Nation’s case-management software indicates that the Respondent accessed the Elijah Johnson file on August

26, 2024, and again on September 23, 2024.

Page 4 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

Respondent accessed “most all”? 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.”

7 See, the October 30, 2024, Grievance Form, statement by Grievant, alleging that “[e]lectronic access logs show [the

Respondent] accessed most all documents contained with the case file. Of important note, the electronic file contains

prosecutor notes on the cases. These notes are often the prosecutor’s analysis of the case, notes about witness of victim

interviews, trial strategy, and other highly confidential items. This is considered attorney work-product and is not

discoverable information. Attorney Lile had full access to the Prosecutor notes in this case.” The Respondent disputes

any allegation that he accessed attorney “work-product” files, but admits that he did review electronic documents he

felt would have been turned over by the Nation through discovery in the criminal case.

8 See, Default Order Disqualifying Attorney, filed on January 27, 2025, in Muscogee (Creek) Nation District Court

case number CF-2022-1019.

Page 5 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

Il. ANALYSIS

Through its investigation, the Court has identified five (5) model rules’ 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

° The Court adopted a modified version of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct via Administrative Order 2018-

02, In re: Adoption of Rules Governing the M(C)N Bar and Attorney Professional Conduct.

Page 6 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

in conformity with this Rule.”!° 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

10 See, Model Rule 1.9, Comment 1.

Page 7 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attomey Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

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." 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

2 and to “prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of another

service[,]

client.”!> 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 casemanagement 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

'l See, Model Rule 1.11, at comment 4,

id.

3 Id. at comment 3.

Page 8 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

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.”'* 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

4 See, Model Rule 3.3, comment 2.

Page 9 of 14

GVA 2024-03, in the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

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 Nofice with the Court at any time during the course of these

proceedings correcting his prior statement. The Respondent could have addressed the Court inperson 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

Page 10 of 14

GVA 2024-03, in the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

Disqualifying Attorney, filed on January 27, 2025. Based on this finding, the Court finds that

discipline is warranted in this action.

IH. 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:

Page 11 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

. 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,

. 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.

. 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.

. 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.

. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order shall result in the immediate disbarment

of the Respondent from the MCN Bar Association.

. This Order shall also represent a public reprimand, and will be made available on the

Court’s website.

Page [2 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

FILED AND ENTERED: July 10, 2025.

_ pense tame

Andrew Adams, III Richard Lerblime = *

Chief Justice Vice-Chief Justice

Montie Deer Amos McNac

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Kathleen R, Super ng TG

Kathleen Supernaw George Thompson, Jr.

Associate Justice Associate Justice

Page 13 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I hereby certify that on July 10, 2025, I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order for

Attorney Discipline with proper postage prepaid to each of the following: Jason M. Lile, 624 S.

Denver Ave., Ste. 300, Tulsa, OK 74119, at 7317 E. 59" St., Tulsa, OK 74119, at 2118 South

Atlanta Place, Tulsa, OK 74114, and at 1615 S. Eucalyptus Ave., Broken Arrow, OK 74012; Terry

Mason Moore, (MCN Bar Counsel for Professional Responsibility), P.O. Box 501, Fairfax, OK

74637; Matthew J. Hall, P.O. Box 580, Okmulgee, OK 74447. A copy of the Order for Attorney

Discipline was also emailed to each of the above-listed on July 10, 2025, at each individual’s email

address of record with the MCN Bar Association.

Joshua ee Staff Attorney

Page 14 of 14

GVA 2024-03, In the Matter of Jason M. Lile, MCN Bar No. 1047

Order for Attorney Discipline, filed July 10, 2025