Title: In the Matter of Jared Michel Thomas

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 21S-DI-16 
In the Matter of 
Jared M. Thomas, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: April 21, 2022 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Apr 21 2022, 10:06 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-16 | April 21, 2022 
Page 2 of 4 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Jared M. Thomas, engaged in attorney 
misconduct by criminally mismanaging his trust account, forging a 
judge’s signature, and falsifying at least one document. For this 
misconduct, we conclude that Respondent should be disbarred. 
Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b), the 
Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission and Respondent have 
submitted for approval a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional 
Agreement for Discipline” stipulating agreed facts and proposed 
discipline. Respondent’s 2011 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to 
this Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. The 
Court approves the agreement and proposed discipline. 
Stipulated Facts 
Respondent currently is under an order of interim suspension arising 
from his September 2021 conviction for check deception. Matter of Thomas, 
177 N.E.3d 433 (Ind. 2021). This criminal conduct also forms the basis for 
the disciplinary complaint filed by the Commission in this case. During an 
approximately three-week span in early 2020, Respondent wrote several 
checks from his trust account to his operating account and vice versa as 
part of a check kiting scheme that left his trust account overdrawn. Soon 
thereafter, Respondent received and deposited into his overdrawn trust 
account a $6,000 equalization payment owing to a client in a marital 
dissolution case, which reduced the negative balance but still left the 
account overdrawn. The $6,000 had not been paid to the client by the time 
the account was closed, but instead served to reduce the loss written off 
by the bank when it closed the account. 
The parties further stipulate that the Commission is investigating 
several additional matters involving Respondent. In connection with one 
of these investigations, Respondent admits he fraudulently created a 
document purporting to be an order granting a sentence modification to a 
client and forged the presiding judge’s signature on that document. The 
parties indicate that other pending investigations also involve allegations 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-16 | April 21, 2022 
Page 3 of 4 
of fraudulent documents, and the parties agree these matters make 
disbarment an appropriate sanction. 
The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional 
Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct: 
1.15(a): Failing to safeguard property of clients and to hold 
property of a client separate from the lawyer’s own property. 
8.4(b): Committing criminal acts that reflect adversely on the 
lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. 
8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 
misrepresentation. 
8.4(d): Engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration 
of justice. 
Agreed facts in aggravation include among other things that 
Respondent engaged in a pattern of misconduct that was illegal in nature, 
his misconduct resulted from a dishonest or selfish motive, and 
Respondent has prior discipline. See Matter of Thomas, 111 N.E.3d 1013 
(Ind. 2018). Respondent’s acceptance of responsibility and the imposition 
of criminal sanctions against him are cited by the parties as facts in 
mitigation.  
Discussion and Discipline 
Our analysis of appropriate discipline entails consideration of the 
nature of the misconduct, the duties violated by the respondent, any 
resulting or potential harm, the respondent’s state of mind, our duty to 
preserve the integrity of the profession, the risk to the public should we 
allow the respondent to continue in practice, and matters in mitigation 
and aggravation. See Matter of Newman, 958 N.E.2d 792, 800 (Ind. 2011). 
These considerations point in a single direction here, and the parties’ 
conditional agreement appropriately proposes that Respondent be 
disbarred. We have imposed severe sanctions in prior cases involving 
crimes of dishonesty, misappropriation of client funds, creation of 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-DI-16 | April 21, 2022 
Page 4 of 4 
fraudulent documents, or forging of signatures. See, e.g., Matter of Fraley, 
138 N.E.3d 262 (Ind. 2020); Matter of Schuyler, 97 N.E.3d 618 (Ind. 2018); 
Matter of Brown, 766 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. 2002). Here, Respondent admits 
having done all of these things. These acts demonstrate Respondent’s 
unfitness to practice law, now or ever. We agree with the parties that 
permanent disbarment is warranted. 
Conclusion 
Respondent already is under an order of interim suspension. For 
Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court disbars Respondent 
from the practice of law in this state, effective immediately. Respondent 
shall fulfill all the duties of a disbarred attorney under Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(26). The costs of this proceeding are assessed against 
Respondent. With our acceptance of the parties’ agreement, the hearing 
officer appointed in this case is discharged with the Court’s appreciation. 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  RES P O N DE N T  
Scott A. Danks 
Jonathan A. Danks 
Evansville, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  I ND I A NA SU P RE ME CO U R T  
D I SC I PL I NA R Y C OMM ISS I O N  
Adrienne L. Meiring, Executive Director 
Mark Carnell, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana