By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
October 2, 2026
In a lawsuit filed against members of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita details multiple disciplinary grievances that prompted investigations into his actions while he has served as the state’s top lawyer, including one initiated by the commission itself alleging that Rokita reviewed or directed his staff to review the voting records and political-donation histories of those who had filed grievances against him.
The lawsuit – Theodore E. Rokita v. Bernard A. Carter, et al., 1:26-cv-2118 – also reveals Hoosier taxpayers paid the $491,508 fee his private attorneys have charged to defend him.
Rokita is alleging past and present members of the disciplinary commission and its executive director, Adrienne Meiring, have violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.
The attorney general asserted the commission engaged in a multiyear campaign to retaliate against and harass him for his public comments and for his “protected petitioning” in lodging a complaint over a personal matter with the Consumer Protection Division of the attorney general’s office and in calling for the Indiana Supreme Court to reform the attorney discipline rules. Also, he accused the commission of disclosing to the public confidential information about the grievances that had been filed against him.
In a press release announcing the lawsuit, Rokita claimed he had taken legal action to stop the commission’s “unethical behavior” not just for himself but for all members of the Indiana bar.
“The First Amendment does not disappear because someone holds a law license or is in an elected office,” Rokita said in the press release issued Friday. “This commission has used the discipline process itself, time and time again, to burden the work Hoosiers elected me to do, and most certainly has had a chilling effect on other elected officials who are attorneys.”
In response to a request for comment, the Indiana Supreme Court, on behalf of the disciplinary commission, said a response would be filed in the federal court to Rokita’s lawsuit.
“It is important to note that because Attorney General Rokita is the plaintiff in the case, his office cannot represent the Disciplinary Commission as it would otherwise be required to do by statute,” the Supreme Court said. “Therefore, the Disciplinary Commission will retain outside counsel.”
The Indiana State Bar Association declined to comment.
Rokita is asking the federal court to enjoin the disciplinary commission defendants from processing grievances against him “in retaliation for his protected speech,” and from disclosing confidential proceedings. He is also asking for compensatory, nominal and punitive damages, plus “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Rokita asserts the commission has kept him “under a microscope.”
In his lawsuit, Rokita said the commission has followed a pattern when handling grievances filed against him: demanding a response from him, opening an investigation that runs for the maximum period permitted, declining to bring any changes and publicizing the pendency of the matter throughout the process. The members facilitated the pattern, he said, by approving each step in the process to prolong the investigation and authorize corrective action, rather than dismissing “each facially meritless grievance.”
Rokita listed the following examples of grievances that had been filed against him:
A first grievance was filed by Paula Cardoza-Jones, an Indianapolis attorney. Her grievance centered on Rokita’s comments on national television in the summer of 2022 about Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis OB/GYN. In his lawsuit, Rokita claimed Cardoza-Jones lodged her complaint “for political ends.” The Indiana Supreme Court gave Rokita a public reprimand for his actions.
However, several grievances were filed against Rokita for his statement about Bernard, and many prominent members of the Indiana legal community publicly expressed their outrage over his actions, including retired Indiana University Maurer School of Law Dean Lauren Robel, retired federal judge John Tinder and former Republican U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks.
During the summer of 2022, a firestorm erupted when Bernard told a reporter she had performed a medication abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, who could not receive medical treatment in her home state because of the restrictions put on reproductive care following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Rokita appeared on FOX News and described Bernard as “an abortion activist acting as a doctor” who he also said had “a history of failing to report” to the state the abortion procedures she performed as required by Indiana law.
On Nov. 2, 2023, a split Indiana Supreme Court accepted the conditional agreement Rokita’s attorneys and the disciplinary commission had reached, which called for the attorney general to be publicly reprimanded and pay $250 in fees. Within a few hours, Rokita released a combative statement, saying his description of Bernard was truthful and he had evidence and explanation for everything he had said.
A second grievance was filed by David Hoffman, an attorney with an inactive license. He complained about Rokita sending letters to Fortune 500 companies, claiming their diversity, equity and inclusion policies might violate the law. The commission demanded a response from Rokita and investigated the matter for a year before dismissing the grievance.
Third and fourth grievances were filed by Cardoza-Jones and William Groth, an Indianapolis attorney. They initiated their complaints over Rokita’s statement following his public reprimand, saying his comment was false and showed a lack of contrition.
The disciplinary commission opened an investigation, which continued through Rokita’s reelection in November 2024. In October 2025, the Indiana Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the second disciplinary complaint because the commission and Rokita has reached a mediation resolution. No disciplinary action was taken.
A fifth grievance was filed by an unnamed grievant. The individual objected to Rokita filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Anderson, on behalf of Indiana, West Virginia and 23 other states. The Supreme Court in 2024 ruled that Colorado could not exclude President Donald Trump from the presidential primary. The Indiana disciplinary commission dismissed the grievance.
A sixth grievance was filed by Groth. His grievance focused on the comments Rokita made during a news conference about his formal advisory opinion regarding terminated pregnancy reports. In response to a question, Rokita, who as the state’s attorney would be required to represent the Indiana Department of Health in any legal action, said the public could sue if the health department did not provide the TPRs. The disciplinary commission took a “corrective action” against Rokita, but did not disclose the penalty it meted out.
Seventh and eighth grievances were initiated by the disciplinary commission. The first looked into allegations that Rokita examined the voting records and political contributions made by the people who had filed grievances against him. The second alleged he had “consulted a firm regarding a press release.”
A ninth grievance was filed by Indiana Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne. This appears to reference the grievance Brown filed against Rokita for what she claimed were “blatantly false” comments made about her, including that she had a relative who was an undocumented immigrant.
Rokita asserted the disciplinary commission handled grievances filed against him in “an abusive manner.”
In his lawsuit, Rokita said as attorney general, he “regularly speaks publicly on matters of significant public concern, including immigration enforcement, the enforcement of state and civil-rights laws, and litigation positions taken by his office. His public commentary on these subjects is core political speech at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.”
The lawsuit against the disciplinary commission appears to have been triggered by a personal dispute Rokita had over repairs to his private jet ski and the engine issues with another he and purchased.
According to court documents, Jess Sampson of Rochester, Indiana, said he sold Rokita a used 2001 Seadoo GTX Limited in August 2025. Sampson said he advised the attorney general to break the jet ski in by avoiding “full throttle runs” for at least 10 hours, but Rokita contacted him the day after he bought it and said he was out “for a full throttle run” and it had quit running.
When Rokita took the watercraft back, Sampson found the engine was damaged, and despite Rokita’s demand, would not refund the purchase price. However, Sampson said he did offer to buy the replacement parts that would be needed for the repair. Rokita agreed and made subsequent plans to buy another jet ski from Sampson. The deal soured as Rokita continued to have engine problems – Sampson claimed Rokita was continuing to run the motor at full throttle before completing the engine break-in period – and wanted to return the jet ski and buy a different one for $500.
Sampson refused, telling Rokita in colorful language that their business relationship had ended.
In November 2025, Sampson received a notice on Attorney General Todd Rokita’s letterhead, stating the Indiana Attorney General’s Office had been investigating his business practices and found he had violated the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The letter stated Sampson could avoid litigation by making restitution in the amount of $8,912.33, payable to Rokita.
The Attorney General’s Office filed a lawsuit against Sampson in Fulton County Superior Court in December 2025. In the complaint, the state upped the consumer restitution being sought to $11,012.33.
In his lawsuit, Rokita asserted the disciplinary commission’s demand that he reply to Sampson’s grievance “improperly interferes” with the ongoing civil litigation.
Rokita claimed he is the consumer and victim in the lawsuit against Sampson. He said he brought his concerns about a transaction and interaction he had with Sampson to the attention of the Consumer Protection Division, which is part of the Attorney General’s Office, and the division elected to investigate and file a complaint.
“As Defendant Meiring and the current Commissioners knew or should have known, General Rokita has in no way ‘use(d) his office to resolve his own personal debt or grievance’ in connection with State v. Sampson,” Rokita said.
In his lawsuit against the disciplinary commission, Rokita is being represented by Schaerr Jaffe in Washington, D.C., and Lewis and Wilkins in Indianapolis.
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.
