Indiana Supreme Court suspends former chief deputy prosecutor for disparaging comments 

A former DeKalb County chief deputy prosecutor has been suspended from the practice of law for 180 days after he was found to have made numerous disparaging comments about his peers and others in the community while acting in his professional capacity.  

In the per curiam opinion published Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that Robert Hardy Jr. violated several professional conduct rules while serving in the role of prosecutor.

Hardy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Prior to his role as deputy prosecutor, Hardy established a law firm with current DeKalb County Superior Court Judge Adam Squiller and current DeKalb County public defender Stephanie Hamilton. The three of them remained colleagues and friends for several years after leaving their shared firm.  

Both Hamilton and Squiller described Hardy as someone who tended to rant and make “provocative statements,” according to the supreme court’s opinion. Throughout the years, Hardy allegedly made statements about hating “poor people” and said that people with autism should be “drowned in the river and killed because they are a drain on society and provide no benefit,” according to the opinion. 

Despite his comments, Hardy’s relationships with Hamilton and Squiller remained cordial until 2023, when Hardy allegedly began accusing the two of having an inappropriate sexual relationship. Hardy had no factual basis for those allegations or his allegations that Hamilton received favorable treatment from Squiller, according to court documents. 

Hardy also said Hamilton had a sexual relationship with a criminal defendant she represented, despite having no facts to support the claim, according to the opinion.  

In addition to comments about his colleagues, Hardy also made several remarks about groups of people getting differential treatment in the legal system. Hardy reiterated his comments about hating “poor people,” and said that people who hire private counsel should receive better plea proposals than those who are represented by a public defender and that attractive women should be given better plea deals, according to court documents.  

Hardy also made disparaging race- and national-origin-based comments, such as that black people did not speak well and that Native Americans “should have been wiped from the earth a while ago,” court documents state.  

Concerns about Hardy’s conduct culminated in December 2023, when his actions led to the dismissal of a criminal case. Two days before a trial was set to begin in Squiller’s courtroom for a defendant Hamilton represented, Hardy allegedly called the defendant’s then-wife and accused Squiller of being biased in Hamilton’s favor. Hamilton moved to dismiss the case for prosecutorial misconduct, which Squiller granted. 

Following an investigation into Hardy’s conduct, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint stating that Hardy violated three Rules of Professional Conduct.  

During his evidentiary hearing in August 2025, Hardy denied making several of the statements the commission’s witnesses said he made. The comments he admitted to having made were jokes or were taken out of context, he said.  

A hearing officer determined that Hardy violated two of the rules but did not violate Rule 8.4(g) because his statements and conduct “fell within the scope of free expression under the First Amendment and did not impact the administration of justice,” according to court documents. The officer recommended that Hardy be suspended for 30 days with automatic reinstatement. 

The commission petitioned a review of the hearing officer’s report, asking the Indiana Supreme Court to review whether Hardy violated Rule 8.4(g) and decide the appropriate sanction for his misconduct.

Rule 8.4(g) states in part that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors.”

The court determined that a lawyer acts “in a professional capacity” under the rule when their conduct “bears a substantial connection to the lawyer’s practice of law or professional role in the legal system,” according to the court’s opinion.

While professional-capacity conduct includes anything a lawyer said or did while representing a client in court or in other professional communications, it is not limited to those instances, the court wrote. It also includes any activities related to the practice, such as the treatment of other attorneys and staff.

The supreme court said that not every offensive comment made by a lawyer subjects them to professional discipline but that “when a lawyer engages in biased or prejudicial conduct that bears a substantial connection to legal work, legal institutions, legal actors, legal proceedings, or the exercise of professional authority, the rule applies.”

Given that Hardy’s comments point to a pattern of offensive behavior, and that he has continued to deny making several of the statements, the court determined he should be suspended from the practice for 180 days. The sanction “reflects the seriousness” of Hardy’s conduct, its damage to public confidence and the need to protect the integrity of the state’s legal system, the court wrote.

Hardy’s suspension is effective beginning Aug. 4, and he will be automatically reinstated after the 180 days concludes.

Justices Mark Massa, Geoffrey Slaughter and Derek Molter concurred. Justice Christopher Goff concurred in part and dissented in part, believing that Hardy should not be automatically reinstated at the end of the 180 days.

The case is In the Matter of Robert James Hardy Jr., 24S-DI-438.