Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita faces three new charges filed by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission on Friday, Jan. 31, 2025. (Casey Smith/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a new round of charges Friday against Attorney General Todd Rokita — this time surrounding his defiant response to a prior reprimand.
In a sworn affidavit, Rokita accepted responsibility for misconduct in exchange for a public reprimand last year. In its new complaint, the commission found that Rokita almost immediately released a statement contradicting his admission.
“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 complaint.
Story continues below.
Rokita now faces new charges for making false statements to the Supreme Court in the conditional agreement and affidavit; engaging in dishonest behavior and misrepresenting to the Supreme Court that he accepted responsibility for his misconduct; and violating a third rule for issuing a press release that contradicted his agreement.
The Republican attorney general did not immediately reply to the Indiana Capital Chronicle’s request for comment.
The underlying case stemmed from Rokita’s televised comments about Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard, who oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022.
Rokita was ultimately reprimanded late last year. Bernard, an OB-GYN, was also disciplined before the Medical Licensing Board for discussing the procedure publicly.
Two hours after the high court handed down the reprimand, Rokita issued a public press release in which he maintained that his statements about Bernard had been “truthful.” He said he agreed to the reprimand to bring the case to a conclusion in order to save taxpayers money.
Grievances filed soon after by an Indiana doctor and attorney — questioning whether Rokita was sincere and contrite when he entered into the conditional agreement — resulted in the disciplinary commission opening a second investigation.
What happens next
When someone files a grievance against a lawyer with the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court, the lawyer is contacted and is required to respond in writing to the complaint.
After that initial investigation, the commission’s executive director weighs if there is probable lawyer misconduct. If not, the grievance is dismissed and the case is never public. If the director believes there is, then the full disciplinary commission reviews the matter.
The full commission is a citizen board made up of seven lawyers and two non-lawyers. They are appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court.
If the commission believes that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct for which they should be disciplined, it files a complaint with the Clerk of the Supreme Court formally charging the lawyer with misconduct.
That is the point where a case becomes public. Preceding deliberations are not public record.
If the commission and the lawyer can agree to the facts of the case and an appropriate disciplinary sanction, a hearing can be avoided. The agreement is submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. If the Court accepts the agreement, the agreed sanction is imposed by the Supreme Court and the case is over. If not, there is a hearing.
A hearing officer is then appointed by the Supreme Court to hear the evidence. The commission acts as prosecutor in the case and must prove its charges with a higher burden of proof than in a civil case. The hearing officer’s responsibilities are like those of a trial court judge, except that the hearing officer cannot make a final decision in the case.
The hearing officer makes a report on the case to the Supreme Court, which makes a final decision.
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. For instance, 1,499 grievances were filed during the 2024 fiscal year, according to the Indiana Supreme Court’s annual report. After review, 1,184 of those were dismissed, “having no valid issue of misconduct.”
This story will be updated.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.