The Indiana Citizen
December 12, 2023
A reference Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita made to two private attorneys’ voting and campaign contribution records has one lawmaker calling the remarks “bothersome” and “unnecessary attacks” that undermine public confidence in the legal system.
“He will stretch whatever powers he has to go after the people that criticize him,” Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, said. “Fortunately, it’s a fairly limited office and it’s incumbent upon the rest of us to recognize that and make sure he stays within the limits of his office.”
Rokita’s comments about the attorneys – Paula Cardoza-Jones and William Groth – came in response to a second disciplinary investigation being opened into his conduct. The grievances filed by Cardoza-Jones and Groth in November took issue with the statement Rokita released after he was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court on Nov. 2.
The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission is now conducting a preliminary investigation because of Rokita’s post-reprimand comment. As part of that investigation, Rokita must provide answers to allegations that he made false statements in the affidavit he signed that settled his first disciplinary matter.
In response to the new disciplinary investigation, a spokesperson from Rokita’s office said, in part, “This one-way street of self-serving accusations made by attorneys with one-sided voting records and giving histories is now being built into a highway of oncoming baseless claims leading to an election year ….”
The comment indicates the attorney general’s office researched the backgrounds of Cardoza-Jones and Groth.
“Why his reaction to a complaint is to go figure out the voting records of the person who complained, that’s bothersome,” DeLaney said. “This is the kind of unnecessary attacks on their voting history, their donation history, the suggestion that the complaint is only based upon the election.”
The attorney general’s office did not respond to a question asking how it knew about the voting records and political contributions of the two lawyers. The Indiana Citizen has filed an Access to Public Records request with the attorney general for any and all records that support the statement about the attorneys’ voting records and contribution histories.
Groth described the opposition research as “positively Orwellian.”
“I’ve been a lawyer in good standing for over 48 years and am not a politician or officeholder, and this smacks of retaliation for exercising both First Amendment rights and my duty as a lawyer to report professional misconduct about which I have knowledge,” Groth said in an email. “Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.3(a) (“A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation…SHALL inform the appropriate professional authority.”). This could also be seen by a reasonable observer to be an attempt to intimidate myself and other critics of the attorney general.”
Cardoza-Jones sees the reference to her identity and background as “irrelevant distractions” but added, “If anyone has any questions about me, they can just ask.”
She noted that as an attorney, she worked in the Indiana Supreme Court’s administration office for 18 years and at the disciplinary commission for two years. Outside of her job, she has volunteered at the Immigrant Welcome Center in Indianapolis to teach English to immigrants and at Indiana Legal Services to help low-income Hoosiers expunge their criminal records and seal their eviction records. Also, she has volunteered for the Special Olympics ballroom dancing program, led a church program for adults with mental disabilities and played triangle in the West Indy Winds municipal band.
Cardoza-Jones said Rokita has tried to paint himself as a victim of partisan political persecution by blaming “the media, medical establishment and cancel culture” along with “liberal activists” for his troubles of late. However, she noted that none of his “perceived enemies” have anything to do with the disciplinary process. She noted the “disciplinary process is as free from partisan politics and personal vendetta as possible.”
“If the current grievances have no merit, they can go nowhere without action by the Commission and the Court,” Cardoza-Jones said. “The Commission members are appointed by the Court, whose current members were all appointed by Republican governors. The timing of the current grievances was dictated by Rokita’s latest actions, not by the election calendar.”
Political accusations?
DeLaney was also troubled by what he saw as the partisan nature of the attorney general’s comments. The lawmaker said no Democrat made Rokita issue the press statements about the disciplinary investigations. Rather, Rokita, himself, chose to speak publicly.
“Is he suggesting that if a Republican had brought the charge he’d feel better?” DeLaney asked. “He just turns everything into a partisan issue.”
Members of the state’s Republican and Democratic leadership have remained silent on this matter. Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston and Indiana Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray did not respond to inquiries about the second disciplinary investigation into the attorney general. Also, Gov. Eric Holcomb did not reply to a question asking if he had concerns about Rokita’s conduct.
Senate minority leader Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis, did not respond to a request for comment.
Likewise, the Indiana State Bar Association declined to comment.
Rokita was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in November for comments he made in the summer of 2022 on Fox News about an Indianapolis OB/GYN who had provided abortion care to a 10-year-old rape victim. He called Dr. Caitlin Bernard “an abortion activist acting as a doctor” and insinuated that she had a history of failing to comply with medical reporting laws.
Although the Supreme Court was unanimous in finding Rokita violated the professional rules and should be disciplined, the justices split on the degree of punishment. The majority accepted a conditional agreement negotiated between Rokita’s attorneys and the disciplinary commission but two dissented, saying the reprimand was too lenient.
The day the Supreme Court issued the public reprimand, Rokita put out a statement. He defended his actions, claiming “liberal activists” hate him and saying that in order to resolve the disciplinary matter, “I was required to sign an affidavit without any modifications.”
In her grievance to the disciplinary commission, Cardoza-Jones asserted Rokita’s post-reprimand statement “directly contradicted his sworn affidavit” in which he admitted that he violated two Indiana Professional Rules of Conduct for attorneys for his comment about Bernard. Consequently, Cardoza-Jones alleged in her grievance that the attorney general lied to the commission and the Supreme Court in the affidavit that supported the confidential agreement.
Monday, the disciplinary commission filed a petition with the Indiana Supreme Court requesting the conditional agreement be released to the public, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.
Most of the legal ethics experts contacted by The Indiana Citizen did not provide a comment on the possibility that the attorney general is doing opposition research.
However, Peter Brann, former state solicitor for Maine and now a partner at Brann & Isaacson, did offer some insight. He has taught about the role of state attorneys general for the past 14 years to law students at Columbia, Yale and Harvard.
In particular, he pointed to the D.C. Circuit Court’s 1992 opinion, which asserted government attorneys must meet a higher standard of professional conduct. The case, Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 962 F.2d 45 (D.C. Cir 1992), actually became moot during the course of the litigation. But the court still chastised the FERC attorney for not taking steps to “avoid needless litigation” and for claiming the burden was on opposing counsel to call with a settlement offer.
The circuit court concluded, “We find it astonishing that an attorney for a federal administrative agency could so unblushingly deny that a government lawyer has obligations that might sometimes trump the desire to pound an opponent into submission.”
Brann also highlighted a recent trend of government attorneys facing discipline or being removed from cases. Both Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, and New York attorney general Letitia James, a Democrat, have faced ethics complaints. Also, Fulton County, Georgia, district attorney Fani Willis and St. Louis prosecutor, Kim Gardner, were removed from cases for potential conflict-of-interest issues.
“It is a pretty common tactic in criminal cases and elsewhere to argue that the complaining witnesses are biased and have an ax to grind, but, at least until recently, state attorneys general did not act like criminal defendants,” Brann stated in an email. “In the end, the question is not whether the complaining witnesses are biased, but whether the Indiana attorney general violated the bar rules.”
‘Start reining him in’
In addition to the allegations of misconduct, DeLaney sees Rokita as expanding the scope of the Indiana attorney general beyond the duties narrowly defined in state statute. Instead of enforcing the state’s laws as he was elected to do, DeLaney said Rokita has been using his staff to insert himself into national disputes that often originated elsewhere.
The state representative pointed to Rokita repeatedly joining amicus briefs filed with federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court for matters that do not directly affect Hoosiers.
“His broader job is to build the confidence of the public of this state in our legal and judicial system, and he does not seem to understand that,” DeLaney said, adding that Rokita’s reference to the Supreme Court as being part of the “woke mob” in effect “undercuts the public confidence” in Indiana’s legal system.
“He’s insulting the very judiciary before which he’s supposed to represent me and every other Hoosier,” DeLaney said. “He’s supposed to go to the courts on behalf of us under our laws on issues that affect us. Instead he takes off on this nationwide crusade.”
DeLaney said he is preparing an amendment that he plans to offer to any bill introduced in the 2024 legislative session that mentions the attorney general’s office. The amendment will require the Indiana attorney general to get the governor’s consent before filing amicus briefs and intervening in cases in which Indiana is not a party.
Believing his amendment will be viewed as a direct assault on Rokita, DeLaney is not optimistic his amendment will gain any traction. Still, he framed his legislation as tackling a bipartisan concern.
“No one elected this man to have a foreign policy, a trade policy, an immigration policy,” DeLaney said. “We elected him to enforce our laws. Not to stretch them, not to get angry, not to abuse the court system. So, we’ve got to start reining him in.”
Dwight Adams, a freelance 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.
