Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita stood firm in his assertions that he did not engage in dishonest or contradictory behavior, as he “vehemently” disputed the state’s attorney disciplinary commission’s most recent charges against him in his response Friday to its complaint.
Obtained from the Indiana Supreme Court, Rokita’s answer stated that his press release following his public reprimand for comments he made in 2022 about Dr. Caitlin Bernard did not contradict the original conditional agreement he made with the disciplinary commission and that he did not engage in dishonest behavior or misrepresent to the court in the agreement.
Taking it a step further, the attorney general’s response also claimed that the actions by the commission violate not only the First Amendment, but also the separation of powers and Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statutes.
According to Rokita, he “acted in furtherance of his right of petition or free speech under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana in connection with an issue of public interest.”
Attorneys for Rokita, Paul Mullin and Ryan Shouse of Lewis and Wilkins LLP, did not respond to The Lawyer’s request for comment before Monday’s deadline.
The commission filed its disciplinary case against Rokita on Jan. 31, accusing him of backtracking on the conditional agreement reached in the Bernard case after he released a public statement denying any wrongdoing, an action the court views as contradictory to his agreeing to accept responsibility.
Also, the commission charged him with providing false statements to the Supreme Court in an affidavit.
According to his recent answer, Rokita still does not deny the comments he made in that 2023 press release, but he does deny that those statements contradicted his agreement to accept “responsibility for his misconduct.”
Included in the Friday response were three instances in the original 2023 press release that the court views as contradictory to the conditional agreement and affidavit:
- In his press release, Rokita said he denies and “was not found to have violated… any laws.” According to the conditional agreement and affidavit included in the response, “the parties agree that Respondent violated Rule 3.6(a)” and that “the parties agree that Respondent violated Rule 4.4(a).”
- In the release, Rokita said, “Having evidence and explanation for everything I said, I could have fought over those 16 words, but ending their campaign now will save a lot of taxpayer money and distraction….” The court argues that the statement contradicts what Rokita agreed to in their agreement, that “I know that if this proceeding were prosecuted, I could not successfully defend myself.”
- Rokita said in his release that, to resolve the original case, he was “required to sign an affidavit without any modifications.” The court views that statement as contradictory to what he signed in their agreement and affidavit, that he “entered into said agreement without being subject to any coercion or duress whatsoever, and I am fully aware of the implications of submitting my consent.”
Rokita denies that any of those public statements contradicted the agreement or affidavit.
Also in his response, Rokita has requested that the commission’s cause of action be dismissed.
Earlier this year, Rokita pushed against the filing of the commission’s case with a dismissal request, reiterating that he did not contradict either the agreement or the affidavit.
The court denied that motion to dismiss in an opinion last month, writing, “It is exceptionally rare for respondents to file motions to dismiss disciplinary complaints, and even rarer that we grant them.”
Instead, the court suggested the intervention of a neutral third-party mediator to help the parties reach a resolution, an unusual and rare option for disciplinary cases.
But if mediation is ultimately not used in the case moving forward, Rokita and the disciplinary commission could still reach a mutual conditional agreement on their own to wrap up the matter and prevent a public hearing, if the court accepts it.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.