Title: In the Matter of Jason Michael Smith

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

I N  T H E
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-DI-577 
Jason M. Smith, 
 Respondent. 
Decided: February 25, 2022 
Attorney Discipline Action 
Hearing Officer Roger L. Duvall 
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
Feb 25 2022, 11:40 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-577 | February 25, 2022 
Page 2 of 7 
Per curiam. 
We find that Respondent, Jason M. Smith, committed attorney 
misconduct by making several statements about a judge’s qualifications or 
integrity, either knowing the statements were false or with reckless 
disregard for their truthfulness. For this misconduct, we conclude that 
Respondent should be suspended for 30 days with automatic 
reinstatement. 
The matter is now before us on the report of the hearing officer 
appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the Indiana Supreme Court 
Disciplinary Commission’s verified disciplinary complaint. Respondent’s 
2006 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary 
jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4. 
Procedural Background and Facts 
Respondent represented the defendant (“DuSablon”) in a suit brought 
by DuSablon’s former employer (Jackson County Bank, or “JCB”). The 
trial court granted preliminary and permanent injunctions in JCB’s favor, 
found DuSablon in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction, and 
awarded attorney fees to JCB. DuSablon appealed. In the appellant’s brief 
filed on DuSablon’s behalf, Respondent made several intemperate and 
unfounded attacks on the integrity of Judge Bruce MacTavish, who had 
presided over most of the trial court proceedings. The Court of Appeals 
chastised Respondent in a footnote to its opinion and directed the Clerk to 
forward the case materials to the Commission. DuSablon v. Jackson County 
Bank, 132 N.E.3d 69, 71 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). 
In October 2020, the Commission filed a disciplinary complaint alleging 
Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a), which 
provides: 
A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows 
to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity 
concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-577 | February 25, 2022 
Page 3 of 7 
adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate 
for election or appointment to judicial or legal office. 
Final hearing was held in May 2021. Following the submission of 
proposed findings by the parties, the hearing officer issued a 47-page 
report finding that Respondent violated Rule 8.2(a) and recommending a 
short suspension with automatic reinstatement. Respondent has 
petitioned for review of that report, responsive briefs have been filed, and 
the matter is now ripe for our consideration. 
Discussion and Discipline 
The Commission carries the burden of proof to demonstrate attorney 
misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. See Ind. Admission and 
Discipline Rule 23(14)(g)(1). While our review process in disciplinary 
cases involves a de novo examination of all matters presented to the 
Court, the hearing officer’s findings receive emphasis due to the unique 
opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Wray, 91 
N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. 2018). 
Respondent advances two overarching arguments in his petition for 
review. First, he raises a due process claim, arguing the Commission’s 
failure to specifically identify all of the statements in his appellant’s brief 
alleged to have violated Rule 8.2(a) deprived him of adequate notice of the 
charges. Second, he argues that in light of the broad protection for 
statements made in a legal proceeding on a client’s behalf, the 
Commission failed to demonstrate the statements in the appellant’s brief 
were made with knowing or reckless falsity. 
The hearing officer’s report found nine different statements in the 
appellant’s brief in violation of Rule 8.2(a).1 Of these nine statements, only 
 
1 The nine statements are quoted in full in pages 13–15 of the hearing officer’s report, and we 
need not reproduce them in their entirety here. A representative sampling follows: 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-577 | February 25, 2022 
Page 4 of 7 
the first three were specifically quoted in the disciplinary complaint filed 
by the Commission. However, the complaint quoted in full the lengthy 
footnote in the Court of Appeals’ opinion in DuSablon finding that “much 
of DuSablon’s lead brief on appeal and reply brief are riddled with 
impertinent attacks on opposing counsel and the trial court.” The next 
paragraph of the complaint alleged that “[m]any of [R]espondent’s 
statements made in his brief and his reply brief about Judge MacTavish’s 
qualifications or integrity as a judge were made by [R]espondent knowing 
they were false or [R]espondent’s statements were made with reckless 
disregard as to their truth or falsity.” Finally, the paragraph after that 
formally charged that “said statements” about Judge MacTavish’s 
qualifications or integrity as a judge violated Rule 8.2(a). While the better 
practice for the Commission would have been to specifically recite in the 
complaint each and every statement alleged to have violated Rule 8.2(a), 
we believe under the circumstances of this case the complaint was 
sufficient to put Respondent on notice of the statements from his 
appellant’s brief that would be at issue in this case. 
 
• 
“[T]he Honorable Bruce MacTavish demonstrated extreme bias and prejudice against 
[DuSablon] by . . . intentionally orchestrating hearings so as to deprive DuSablon of 
opportunities to be heard[.]” 
• 
“Judge MacTavish’s almost submissive interactions with JCB’s counsel, followed by 
the granting [of] ex parte orders in JCB’s favor, and various other methods of 
disregarding DuSablon’s efforts to defend himself, tell a story of extreme partiality.” 
• 
“Judge MacTavish’s quick entry of ex parte orders, at JCB’s request, creates the 
appearance that he is doing the bidding of JCB dutifully and without question.” 
• 
“Judge MacTavish appeared to go beyond the mere summary granting of JCB’s 
motions, to the point of proactively assisting in the elimination of DuSablon’s due 
process.” 
• 
“At worst, [Judge] MacTavish intentionally misled DuSablon’s counsel[.]” 
• 
“Judge MacTavish’s bias or prejudice seemed to become an open and obvious 
weapon designed to convince DuSablon that his search for impartial review was 
hopeless.” 
• 
“[Judge] MacTavish cemented his subservience to JCB when he submitted a 
memorandum in his own court . . . authorizing [JCB ’s counsel] to ‘decide’ the 
findings of fact and conclusions of law on both the Final Injunction Order and the 
Contempt Order.” 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-577 | February 25, 2022 
Page 5 of 7 
Turning to those statements, we readily agree with the hearing officer 
that, viewed individually or in toto, they crossed the line into 
impermissible conduct. The hearing officer’s report comprehensively 
debunks the various factual assertions made by Respondent in the 
appellant’s brief with respect to Judge MacTavish; and applying our 
standard of review, we find ample evidence to support the hearing 
officer’s ultimate finding that Respondent knew these assertions were 
false or acted in reckless disregard of whether they were true or false. 
Respondent counters by citing our recognition in Matter of Dixon, 994 
N.E.2d 1129, 1138 (Ind. 2013), that “attorneys need wide latitude in 
engaging robust and effective advocacy on behalf of their clients.” But that 
“wide latitude” is not a blank check. Dixon also provides that “good faith 
professional advocacy” is a predicate for application of this “least 
restrictive” standard. Id.; see also Matter of Wilkins, 782 N.E.2d 985, 986 
(Ind. 2003) (“Lawyers are completely free to criticize the decisions of 
judges. As licensed professionals, they are not free to make recklessly false 
claims about a judge’s integrity”). The hearing officer’s report and record 
in this case amply rebut any notion that the particular statements 
regarding Judge MacTavish’s integrity were made by Respondent in good 
faith—even assuming, arguendo, that the broader due process arguments 
were made in good faith.2 Put simply, Respondent has not offered any 
support for his statements about Judge MacTavish’s integrity beyond 
assertions that are belied by the record. 
In sum, we agree with the hearing officer and conclude that 
Respondent violated Rule 8.2(a). On the question of sanction, past cases 
involving similar misconduct have resulted in reprimands or short 
suspensions, differentiated at least in part by whether the violation 
 
2 We also note that Respondent did not file a grievance against Judge MacTavish with the 
Judicial Qualifications Commission. Professional Conduct Rule 8.3(b) requires an attorney 
who “knows” that a judge has violated the rules of judicial conduct in a manner raising a 
substantial question as to the judge’s fitness for office to inform the appropriate authority. 
Even short of such actual knowledge, a lawyer may still file a grievance if he has reason to 
believe a violation may have occurred. See Matter of Becker, 620 N.E.2d 691, 694 (Ind. 1993). 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-577 | February 25, 2022 
Page 6 of 7 
involved an isolated statement or repeated statements. Compare Wilkins, 
782 N.E.2d at 987 (on rehearing, imposing a public reprimand for 
attorney’s violation of Rule 8.2(a) in a single footnote in a petition to 
transfer), with Becker, 620 N.E.2d at 694 (imposing a 30-day suspension 
with automatic reinstatement for repeated false statements in an appellate 
brief concerning the trial judge’s integrity). The hearing officer in this case 
recommended a short suspension, citing the number and scope of 
improper statements in the appellant’s brief filed by Respondent. We 
agree that a suspension is warranted for this reason and conclude 
Respondent should be suspended for 30 days with automatic 
reinstatement. 
Conclusion 
The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional 
Conduct Rule 8.2(a). For Respondent’s professional misconduct, the Court 
suspends Respondent from the practice of law in this state for a period of 
30 days, beginning April 8, 2022. Respondent shall not undertake any new 
legal matters between service of this opinion and the effective date of the 
suspension, and Respondent shall fulfill all the duties of a suspended 
attorney under Admission and Discipline Rule 23(26). At the conclusion of 
the period of suspension, provided there are no other suspensions then in 
effect, Respondent shall be automatically reinstated to the practice of law, 
subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(18)(a). The 
costs of this proceeding are assessed against Respondent, and 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. 
R E S P ON D E NT  P R O  S E  
Jason M. Smith 
Seymour, Indiana 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-DI-577 | February 25, 2022 
Page 7 of 7 
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 
David E. Griffith, Staff Attorney 
Indianapolis, Indiana