Disciplinary commission rejects Indiana AG Todd Rokita’s call to dismiss latest ethics complaint

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission issued a firm rebuttal this week to Attorney General Todd Rokita’s attempt to dismiss a pending ethics complaint accusing him of misleading the court.

In the 44-page brief filed Tuesday, Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, called Rokita’s motion “procedurally improper” and “meritless.”

She referenced the Republican attorney general’s filing from February, in which he argued that the pending disciplinary case violates his First Amendment rights and Indiana’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect political speech from frivolous legal action.

Meiring repeatedly rejected Rokita’s claims that three new charges filed against the Republican attorney general were politically motivated or an unconstitutional attack on free speech. She urged the state’s high court to move forward with the case.

“This matter is not about politics. It is not about (Rokita’s) viewpoint on any political, social, or cultural issue, nor is it about any executive decision or action by (Rokita) in his statutory office of Indiana Attorney General,” Meiring wrote. “Instead, this matter pertains to the integrity of the judicial system and the attorney disciplinary process.”

Disciplinary commission pushes back

At the heart of the dispute is a press release Rokita issued just hours after the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded him in November 2023 for earlier misconduct.

In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to violating professional conduct rules in exchange for a public reprimand. Although he agreed not to contest the charges, the commission found that Rokita recanted almost immediately, suggesting in a public press release that he had done nothing wrong.

The disciplinary commission held that “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.” One member of the nine-person commission, Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter, abstained from the proceedings.

Rokita did not contradict the earlier disciplinary agreement — or the sworn affidavit — in his motion to dismiss. Rather, he maintained the disciplinary commission’s latest charges against him violated Indiana law, specifically the “constitutional separation of powers principles.”

The attorney general also said he “should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents without the constant threat of an unelected commission parsing his every word, ready to pounce with a disciplinary action when they perceive any imagined inconsistency.”

“Given the serious constitutional, statutory and factual problems with its case,” Rokita continued, the “right thing” for the commission to do is “withdraw its complaint.”

The commission disagreed.

“The Commission has no dispute with Respondent’s right to issue a press release or to discuss the Conditional Agreement and the resolution of his disciplinary case. The fallacy in Respondent’s argument is that he misidentifies the speech involved in this disciplinary matter,” Meiring wrote. “The core issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent was candid with this Court in making sworn statements recited and relied upon in the 2023 Opinion. Simply put, Respondent’s statements to the Court in the 2023 disciplinary proceeding, under oath, are the problematic speech.”

As to Rokita’s free speech claims, Meiring further argued that “the First Amendment does not protect attorney speech that lies or misleads,” and cited multiple state and federal precedents that permit disciplinary sanctions for dishonest conduct by attorneys.

Meiring asserted, too, that Rokita failed to file a required answer to the charges and instead tried to “improperly” use a motion to bypass a formal hearing.

Tensions flare over proposed rules

Rokita additionally accused the commission of retaliating against him for proposing reforms to Indiana’s attorney discipline rules, which he submitted to the state supreme court in November and released to the public in January.

The changes sought to limit the disciplinary commission’s power and protect attorneys from politically driven complaints.

Rokita argued that the commission was aware of the proposal well before it was made public. He said the new disciplinary complaint filed against him at the end of January was a direct response.

Meiring disputed those “groundless” claims at length in this week’s brief.

She called Rokita’s theory baseless, noting that the commission was already bound by a Feb. 4 deadline to conclude its investigation, “and, if appropriate, file charges.”

“(Rokita)’s decision on when to publish his Rules Proposal had no bearing on the Commission’s filing decision,” Meiring wrote.

“Respondent’s decision to publicly release his Rules Proposal on or about January 7, 2025, when the Proposal had been delivered to the Justices two months earlier, was his own timing choice,” she continued. “Respondent cannot create suspicion of retaliation simply by publicizing his Rules Proposal closer to the Commission’s deadline for filing the instant proceeding. Just as a litigant cannot prompt disqualification of a judge via the litigant’s own action of filing an unfounded complaint or lawsuit, Respondent should not be able to prompt dismissal based on alleged ‘suspicious timing’ brought about by his own actions.”

The underlying case

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 Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an “activist acting as a doctor” and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022.

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 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.

A decision on the dismissal motion and the disciplinary commission’s new complaint is up to the Indiana Supreme Court.

If the charges aren’t dismissed — or if the disciplinary commission and Rokita can’t reach a settlement agreement — the state’s high court justices will appoint a hearing officer to hold a public hearing on the case and hear evidence.

It would be up to the hearing officer to then issue findings and recommendations to the court, which has final say over the outcome of the case.

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, however.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.