Indiana Attorney General Rokita faces three new disciplinary charges

By Casey Smith
Indiana Capital Chronicle

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a new round of charges Friday against Attorney General Todd Rokita — this time surrounding his defiant response to a prior reprimand.

In a sworn affidavit, Rokita accepted responsibility for misconduct in exchange for a public reprimand last year. In its new complaint, the commission found that Rokita almost immediately released a statement contradicting his admission.

“This retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules,” Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, wrote in the complaint.

Rokita now faces new charges for making false statements to the Supreme Court in the conditional agreement and affidavit; engaging in dishonest behavior and misrepresenting to the Supreme Court that he accepted responsibility for his misconduct; and violating a third rule for issuing a press release that contradicted his agreement.

“The lawfare continues and is aimed at silencing me because they don’t like what I say on behalf of Hoosiers who spoke loudly at the ballot box recently. This is an attempt to take away their voices as well,” Rokita said in a Friday statement.

“These never-ending investigations have created unnecessary distractions and expenses, and despite my offer to take responsibility well over a year ago, this matter continues to be revisited by politically passionate people who have weaponized the process, going well beyond what is fair and appropriate,” he continued.

The underlying case stemmed from Rokita’s televised comments about Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard, who oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022.

Rokita was ultimately reprimanded late last year. Bernard, an OB-GYN, was also disciplined before the Medical Licensing Board for discussing the procedure publicly.

Two hours after the high court handed down the reprimand, Rokita issued a public press release in which he maintained that his statements about Bernard had been “truthful.” He said he agreed to the reprimand to bring the case to a conclusion in order to save taxpayers money.

Grievances filed soon after by an Indiana doctor and attorney — questioning whether Rokita was sincere and contrite when he entered into the conditional agreement — resulted in the disciplinary commission opening a second investigation.

Rokita’s “retraction”

Central to the disciplinary commission’s complaint is Rokita’s sworn conditional agreement regarding his discipline, and a subsequent press release issued by the attorney general.

In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Bernard an “activist acting as a doctor” and said his office would be investigating her conduct.

That November, a split decision and public reprimand from state Supreme Court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers:

• They said Rokita’s comments constituted an “extrajudicial statement” that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings.
• They also said his statements had “no substantial purpose” other than to embarrass or burden Dr. Caitlin Bernard.

Rokita and the commission agreed to the discipline in the conditional agreement. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn’t have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried.

The parties disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct “that is prejudicial to the administration of justice” — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for “admission to misconduct” on the others.

Rokita’s punishment included a public reprimand and $250 in court costs.

But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita shared a lengthy and unrepentant statement, defending his “true” remarks in which he attacked the news media, medical field and “cancel culture.”

The disciplinary commission pointed to those remarks — as well as earlier drafts of the statement obtained by subpoena, and a recent quote provided to the Indiana Lawyer — as evidence of Rokita’s “lack of candor and dishonesty to the Court” after he agreed to accept responsibility for misconduct.

Rokita continued to refute on Friday, however.

“​​The claim that my press statement contradicts the agreement is wrong. The agreement required me to acknowledge the disciplinary process and accept the reprimand, which I did — it did not require me to forfeit my right to speak truthfully about what happened regarding a major political and policy matter,” Rokita said in his statement.

“I upheld my obligations while also defending myself against mischaracterizations that were circulating for weeks while being prohibited from speaking. Once able, I spoke truthfully,” he added. “I remain committed to enforcing the law, protecting Hoosiers, and defending their rights, undeterred by efforts to create further controversy where none should exist.”

What happens next

When someone files a grievance against a lawyer with the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court, the lawyer is contacted and is required to respond in writing to the complaint.

After that initial investigation, the commission’s executive director weighs if there is probable lawyer misconduct. If not, the grievance is dismissed and the case is never public. If the director believes there is, then the full disciplinary commission reviews the matter.

The full commission is a citizen board made up of seven lawyers and two non-lawyers. They are appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court.

If the commission believes that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct for which they should be disciplined, it files a complaint with the Clerk of the Supreme Court formally charging the lawyer with misconduct.

That is the point where a case becomes public. Preceding deliberations are not public record.

If the commission and the lawyer can agree to the facts of the case and an appropriate disciplinary sanction, a hearing can be avoided. The agreement is submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. If the Court accepts the agreement, the agreed sanction is imposed by the Supreme Court and the case is over. If not, there is a hearing.

A hearing officer is then appointed by the Supreme Court to hear the evidence. The commission acts as prosecutor in the case and must prove its charges with a higher burden of proof than in a civil case. The hearing officer’s responsibilities are like those of a trial court judge, except that the hearing officer cannot make a final decision in the case.

The hearing officer makes a report on the case to the Supreme Court, which makes a final decision.

Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include:

• a private or public reprimand;
• suspension from practice for a set period of time;
• suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and
• permanent disbarment.

The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed. For instance, 1,499 grievances were filed during the 2024 fiscal year, according to the Indiana Supreme Court’s annual report. After review, 1,184 of those were dismissed, “having no valid issue of misconduct.”

* * *

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to giving Hoosiers a comprehensive look inside state government, policy and elections. The site combines daily coverage with in-depth scrutiny, political awareness and insightful commentary.

You can read the original version of the story here.