Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a motion to dismiss a new complaint filed against him by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Photo by Nathan Gotsch, Fort Wayne Politics.

By Casey Smith
Indiana Capital Chronicle

INDIANAPOLIS — Attorney General Todd Rokita is seeking to dismiss a new complaint filed against him by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, calling it an “impermissible attempt to restrain an elected official and candidate’s political speech.”

The 26-page document filed Thursday, Feb. 20 argued Rokita did not contradict an earlier disciplinary agreement or sworn affidavit. Rather, the Republican attorney general maintained the disciplinary commission’s latest complaint violated Indiana law, specifically the “constitutional separation of powers principles.”

Rokita’s motion also contends the charges violate his First Amendment right to free speech and Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statute intended to protect speech against legal challenges.

In a sworn affidavit, Rokita accepted responsibility for misconduct in exchange for a public reprimand last year. In its new complaint filed in late January, the commission found Rokita almost immediately released a statement contradicting his admission.

New Charges Filed

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 Dr. Caitlin 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.

Rokita Pushes Back

Rokita’s motion argues the disciplinary commission is “thought-policing” the attorney general, and that Rokita is being retaliated against for “daring to propose common-sense reforms to the disciplinary process.”

He took particular issue with his press release issued after the original reprimand. Rokita pointed specifically to this statement made in that 2023 release: “I deny and was not found to have violated anyone’s confidentiality or any laws. I was not fined.”

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

The commission used the remarks as further evidence of Rokita’s failure to accept responsibility for actions that led to his prior discipline.

But Rokita argued that the article’s context shows his quote “was plainly” referring to at least three conduct complaints filed against him by “Democratic activists” after his reprimand and not to the reprimand itself.

“The Commission rips this quote out of context to create a false narrative that Respondent was dishonest,” Rokita wrote in his motion to dismiss. “As the full context shows, Respondent’s quote was responding to the recent wave of politically motivated disciplinary complaints and the ensuing investigations the Commission started as a result of those politically motivated grievances filed and intentionally made public during Respondent’s re-election campaign by self-described liberal activist attorneys.”

Rokita also accused the commission of retaliating against him for his proposals to change Indiana’s disciplinary rules for lawyers to more clearly allow for political speech.

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.
• Permanent disbarment.

The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed, however.