Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has been charged by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission with violating three Rules of Professional Conduct. (Photo/courtesy Indiana Attorney General’s Office)
By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
January 31, 2025
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission has filed a second disciplinary complaint against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, alleging that after his public reprimand in November 2023, the state’s top lawyer engaged in further misconduct, which included making false statements and misrepresenting to the Supreme Court his acceptance of responsibility for his previous actions.
Filed on Friday, the new disciplinary complaint charged Rokita with violating three Rules of Professional Conduct for statements he made in a press release his office issued only a few hours after the Supreme Court sanctioned him in his first disciplinary complaint. The commission asserted in the new complaint that the attorney general’s press release and continued conduct demonstrate his “lack of candor and dishonesty to the (Supreme) Court.”
The new complaint recommended that Rokita be disciplined for professional misconduct, but it does not offer any suggestions or guidance as to what specific sanctions he should be given.
Rokita punched back at the new disciplinary complaint Friday afternoon. He alluded to his previous assertions that he is being targeted for exercising his right to free speech and also referenced his re-election in November with 58.8% of the vote.
“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,” Rokita said in a statement. “This is an attempt to take away their voices as well.”
As is customary, neither the disciplinary commission nor the Indiana Supreme Court issued any statement about the new complaint.
Unless the attorney general and the Supreme Court reach an agreement on what, if any, discipline should be imposed, this case will likely proceed to a hearing. Such a hearing would be similar to a courtroom trial and would have a specially-appointed hearing officer presiding, as Rokita and the disciplinary commission, both represented by attorneys, present evidence and question witnesses. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the hearing officer will made a recommendation to the Supreme Court and then the justices can either accept the hearing officer’s determination or hand down what they deem an appropriate sanction.
Any such discipline could range from another reprimand to suspension of Rokita’s law license, either with or without automatic reinstatement, to disbarment.
Allegations of false and contradictory statements
Rokita’s disciplinary troubles began more than two years ago when Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis OB/GYN, became the focus of a media firestorm after she performed an abortion on a 10-year-old Ohio rape victim in June 2022. Rokita made public appearances and issued statements indicating that his office was investigating Bernard, but he was sanctioned, specifically, for appearing on Fox News and referring to Bernard as an “abortion activist acting as a doctor – with a history of failure to report,” while the investigation into the doctor was pending.
The public reprimand Rokita received on Nov. 2, 2023, was part of a conditional agreement that he and his attorneys reached with the disciplinary commission to settle his first disciplinary case. A divided Indiana Supreme Court accepted the agreement and the supporting affidavit, with a 3-2 majority saying that Rokita’s “acceptance of responsibility” was a mitigating factor in favor of a more lenient punishment.
However, within two hours after the court handed down the decision announcing the reprimand, Rokita issued his press release, asserting, in part, that he had evidence to support the allegations against Bernard he made on television, but he signed the agreement to save taxpayers money.
Less than a week later, the disciplinary commission, prompted by two separate grievances filed by two Indianapolis attorneys, opened a new investigation into Rokita’s post-reprimand conduct. The complaint filed Friday, 15 months after the second investigation began, charged Rokita with violating three professional conduct rules for alleged false and contradictory statements made in the conditional agreement and accompanying affidavit, and in the press release.
The new disciplinary complaint charged that in his conditional agreement and accompanying affidavit, which he signed under oath, Rokita made false statements and engaged in dishonest behavior and misrepresented to the Supreme Court that he accepted responsibility for his misconduct. Also, the complaint alleged Rokita’s statements in the press release contradicted the statement he swore to in the conditional agreement and accompanying affidavit and “retracted his acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct.”
In her grievance filed with the commission on Nov. 5, 2023, retired Indianapolis attorney Paula Cardoza-Jones stated she believed the attorney general committed the criminal act of perjury by “lying in his affidavit supporting the (conditional agreement) and submitting it to the (Supreme Court).” Also, she noted, the Supreme Court relied on Rokita’s affidavit when it approved the conditional agreement.
The disciplinary commission did not include perjury among the charges.
On Friday, Rokita denied the commission’s allegations.
“The claim that my press statement contradicts the agreement is wrong,” Rokita said in his statement. “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. 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.”
Commission seeks drafts of the press release
As part of its investigation, the disciplinary commission looked closely at how Rokita’s press release was crafted. The commission subpoenaed Rokita and his office’s communication staff for all of the drafts of the press release that were written, edited, revised or reviewed by the attorney general and for all written and electronic communications about the press release sent to or from the attorney general.
According to the complaint, records submitted in response to the subpoenas revealed Rokita and his communications team began drafting the press release in early October 2023, about a month after he signed the affidavit. Rokita, the complaint said, “actively took part in drafting, editing, and instructing” office employees and a subcontractor about what he wanted to be contained in the final release.
A chart in the second complaint compares Rokita’s statements in the press release to what he accepted in the conditional agreement and affidavit.
In particular, Rokita said in the release sent on Nov. 2, 2023, that he had evidence and could have fought the first disciplinary complaint, but he settled to “save a lot of taxpayer money and distraction.” However, in the agreement and affidavit he signed, Rokita acknowledged he could not have successfully defended himself against the charges of professional misconduct. Also, in the press release, he said he was required to sign the affidavit “without any modifications,” but in the agreement and affidavit, Rokita stated that he consented to the settlement, “knowingly, freely, and voluntarily.”
Rokita lashed out Friday by continuing to claim the disciplinary investigation and complaints have no merit.
“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,” Rokita said in his statement.
The disciplinary commission is also investigating at least one other grievance against Rokita’s conduct.
In July 2024, the attorney general was asked to respond to a grievance filed against him for statements he made during a press conference about the terminated pregnancy reports, or TPRs, that state law requires physicians submit to the Indiana Department of Health after every abortion procedure. When Indiana’s near-total abortion ban took effect in 2023, the health department decided the TPRs were, in fact, private medical records and, therefore, exempt from the open records law.
Rokita took the opposite view. He issued an official opinion in April of 2024, saying the TPRs were public documents and then, during a news conference, said anyone who was denied access to the TPRs could sue the health department. The attorney filing the grievance asserted Rokita was essentially encouraging people to file a lawsuit against a state agency that, as attorney general, he has a duty to represent.
To date, the disciplinary commission has not filed a complaint in that case.
Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He is a former content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and worked as a planner for other newspapers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.
The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org.