Disciplinary case against AG Todd Rokita is taking some ‘uncommon’ turns

The three-year feud between Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita and the state’s attorney disciplinary commission over the ethical boundaries of his fiery political language is headed toward an unusual path.

For starters, the Indiana Supreme Court has accepted Rokita’s suggestion to name a three-person panel to hear a second disciplinary case filed against him. Usually, only one hearing officer is appointed.

Even more unusual, though, is the court’s suggestion that Rokita and the commission head to mediation, which would mean the two parties voluntarily agree to try to reach a resolution—with the help of a neutral third-party mediator—and potentially avoid a public hearing.

“Mediation, in a disciplinary case, I would call it uncommon,” said David Remondini, a civil and domestic mediator who also served as counsel to former Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard.

Several attorneys privately told The Indiana Lawyer that they had never heard of mediation being used in an attorney disciplinary case, and even one state supreme court justice noted that no rules exist that explicitly allow or prohibit such a process.

The Supreme Court, in denying Rokita’s motion to dismiss the second disciplinary case, said it was suggesting mediation because the “vehement” disagreement between the disciplinary commission and the attorney general is “narrow and stems from their previous agreement.”

How it all started

The current disciplinary case arises from Rokita’s unapologetic public reaction to the reprimand he received from the Indiana Supreme Court as he settled his first disciplinary case in 2023.

In that initial case, Rokita was punished for comments he made in 2022 about Dr. Caitlin Bernard.

The OB-GYN had told The Indianapolis Star about a medical abortion she performed for a 10-year-old rape victim, who was forced to come to Indiana for the treatment because her home state of Ohio prohibited it at that time. She offered the story to help explain the potential problems caused by abortion bans.

Rokita, a staunch Republican supporter of the near-total abortion ban that Indiana would later impose, responded on Fox News by calling Bernard an “abortion activist acting as a doctor,” adding fuel to a story that already was burning up the national political talk show airwaves.

The Indiana Supreme Court said it reprimanded Rokita because his comments were likely to improperly influence the adjudication of his office’s stated investigation of Bernard and “had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden the physician.”

Later, the Indiana State Medical Licensing Board also reprimanded Bernard for a patient privacy violation.

It was Rokita’s swift response to his reprimand that would land him in hot water again.

A second disciplinary case

The new disciplinary case filed against Rokita on Jan. 31 accuses the state’s chief legal officer of backtracking on the disciplinary agreement reached in the Bernard case in which he accepted responsibility for the misconduct.

Almost immediately after the court announced Rokita’s reprimand, he issued a news release that the disciplinary commission says contradicted the disciplinary agreement.

“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 new complaint.

The commission also accuses him of providing false statements to the supreme court in a sworn affidavit and of engaging in dishonest conduct when he told the court he accepted responsibility for his misconduct.

Rokita argued in a dismissal request that he did not contradict the earlier disciplinary agreement or a signed affidavit.

He acknowledged that his press release issued after the reprimand said: “I deny and was not found to have violated anyone’s confidentiality or any laws. I was not fined.”

Rokita argued that those statements are true because, although he was reprimanded for violating certain lawyer conduct rules, those rules are not statutory laws.

“The commission’s decision to bring a disciplinary action based on differing colloquial and legal interpretations of a term in an attempt to fabricate misrepresentation where none exists is wrong and, frankly, shocking,” Rokita said in a dismissal request that was ultimately denied.

Throughout the process, Rokita has held firm to his allegations that the commission’s actions amount to retaliation and violate his First Amendment right to free speech as well as the separation of powers. He’s also accused two commission members of political bias.

“One thing that is clear is that the AG did nothing dishonest, illegal, or even wrong, and he will continue to fight for the people of this state no matter how much the Left hates it,” Rokita said in a written statement to The Lawyer earlier this year.

The barbed back-and-forth between Rokita and the disciplinary commission was duly noted in court’s denial of Rokita’s request to dismiss the pending disciplinary charges.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Christopher Goff found it all an outgrowth of the tension that can occur when the recently-heightened political roles of state attorneys general rub against the ethical rules that apply to attorneys.

“When a licensed attorney, entrusted with the full legal power of a state, advocates (or legally implements) divisive policies advocated by national partisans, their statements and actions can, in some circumstances, be both politically popular within their state and violative of its rules of professional conduct for attorneys,” Goff wrote.

“And because the legal power of a state attorney general is so great, such popular but unprofessional conduct can hurt real people and impede official processes,” Goff added. “When that happens, people harmed by such conduct will look to the attorney-discipline process for relief.”

How mediation would work

In order for the case to move to mediation, both Rokita and the commission would have to agree to that process, regardless of the tensions between them.

Kathryn Dolan, chief public information officer for the Indiana Supreme Court, did not respond directly to The Lawyer’s questions about how open the commission might be to that possibility.

She said the commission is aware of the appointment of the hearing officer panel and looks forward to following their guidance regarding next steps.

Rokita’s office did not respond to The Lawyer’s request for comment. More details from his office are expected when he files his response to the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss, which is due Aug. 17.

Remondini said mediation is very common in helping to settle all kinds of legal disputes across the state. But he notes that no rules are in place for attorney discipline cases that direct the parties toward mediation.

“Mediations are very informal, and very, very often there’s a mediator and the two parties, and often attorneys for the two parties,” Remondini explained. “The mediator typically works with each side to get them to see the other side’s perspective and find a way through to a solution that they both feel positive about.”

Justice Goff, in a separate concurring opinion, joined the court’s decision to direct the parties to consider mediation, though he also noted there are no rules that directly address such an option. He also expressed reservations about the potential impact of adding mediation to the process.

“I fear that adding such a provision could be seen, and perhaps used, as a means of getting around the disciplinary process,” Goff said. “In my view, it’s important for our disciplinary process to apply equally to a sole practitioner and a powerful statewide office holder.”

One of the benefits of mediation, Remondini explained, is its cost effectiveness.

“Often, you can get a mediation scheduled sooner than you could get a court hearing scheduled, and because it’s faster, it’s often much cheaper,” Remondini said. “So I would say, if those are important goals to the parties, then mediation will make sense for them.”

The Indiana Capital Chronicle reported in June that the state already has spent a combined $491,508 between 2022 and 2025 to represent Rokita in at least six disciplinary matters before the commission. More than $240,000 went to Indianapolis-based Ammeen and Associates, which represents Rokita in the current case.

Other potential outcomes

Even if the case doesn’t involve a neutral third-party mediator, Rokita and the disciplinary commission could still reach a mutual conditional agreement on their own that would settle the matter and prevent a public hearing.

That is often what happens in attorney disciplinary cases in Indiana. But, ultimately, the Indiana Supreme Court has to sign off on the agreement.

If no agreement is reached, the case would move to a public hearing that would be conducted by the rare three-person panel appointed by the state supreme court.

A single hearing officer is typically used to hear attorney disciplinary cases. Three-person panels are usually reserved for disciplinary cases against judges.

Even Curtis Hill, the last Indiana attorney general to face disciplinary charges, had one hearing officer. (The disciplinary commission recommended a three-person panel, but the state supreme court rejected that suggestion.)

Ultimately, Hill’s law license was suspended for 30 days in 2019 after the high court determined he committed battery in a case that involved allegations that he groped four women at an alcohol-
fueled party.

The three people appointed to hear Rokita’s case are: Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, an appointee of Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels; Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik, an appointee of Democratic Gov. Frank O’Bannon; and private attorney William Hussmann of Kightlinger & Gray LLP, who has served as a U.S. magistrate judge, a deputy attorney general and a staff attorney with the state disciplinary commission.

The panel would determine if Rokita engaged in misconduct and make a recommendation to the state supreme court.

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 fit or permanent disbarment.

In Rokita’s case, there seem to be few differences between the attorney general and the disciplinary commission about the actual events that occurred after he received his reprimand and that led to the pending disciplinary case.

As Indiana Supreme Court Justice Derek Molter wrote in the majority opinion denying Rokita’s request to dismiss the case: “…It seems to boil down primarily to whether (the attorney general) really meant it when he told us he was accepting responsibility for violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.”

That’s a matter of interpretation that has been left to the three-person panel, which will make a recommendation to the state’s high court if a mediator can’t help settle the case.•