By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
June 5, 2025
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is asserting he did not lie to the Indiana Supreme Court or to Hoosiers as he battles a second disciplinary complaint filed against him over allegations that he made “false representations” to the Supreme Court in his prior disciplinary case that resulted in a public reprimand.
Since the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a second complaint for professional misconduct against Rokita in late January, the attorney general has been trying to convince the justices to discard the case. Rokita filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in February and renewed his arguments in late May as the commission seeks to have the Supreme Court appoint a hearing officer and allow the case to proceed.
Rokita argued that in pursuing this action, the disciplinary commission is violating his constitutional right to free speech. He accused the commission of targeting the public comments he made as a state official and candidate for office in a press release that he issued in November 2023 after the resolution of his first disciplinary proceeding.
“The Commission is trying to regulate an elected official’s true statements to the electorate about issues related to his office,” Rokita asserted in his reply filing. “As a result, Attorney General Rokita’s speech has been chilled. The Commission’s investigations have intruded on Attorney General Rokita’s day-to-day office operations and the free flow of information within his office.”
However, the disciplinary commission countered the second complaint is not about Rokita’s views or comments on any political, social or cultural issue. Rather the “core issue” is whether the attorney general was candid when he made statements under oath in his first disciplinary proceeding, which the Indiana Supreme Court relied upon in determining the sanction.
“The speech here involves attorney speech in a court proceeding; and there is no ‘free speech’ right under the U.S. Constitution to make false statements to a court of law,” the commission stated in its brief opposing Rokita’s motion to dismiss.
If the court does not grant Rokita’s motion to dismiss, then the case will proceed much like a trial. A hearing officer will be appointed and the opposing sides will present their evidence, witness testimony and arguments. At the conclusion, the hearing officer will make a recommendation to the Supreme Court as to whether Rokita should be sanctioned and, if so, what that sanction should be. The justices will make the final decision on what punishment, if any, to issue.
Already, Rokita has indicated he will fight the appointment of a hearing officer. In a footnote in his reply filing, he advocated for the unusual appointment of a judicial panel of three “special masters,” from across Indiana, rather than a single judge, in order, he said, to prevent the politics “of any one person, party or region” from influencing this case.
Rokita said in the footnote that he had floated the idea of the three-judge panel, but the commission’s “response was knee-jerk,” saying the rules do not provide for it.
“To be clear, the Attorney General does not consent to the appointment of a single hearing officer if the Verified Complaint is not dismissed,” Rokita said in his reply filing. “He will file a motion for the appointment of a panel.”
Rokita was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court on Nov. 2, 2023, for comments he made in the summer of 2022 on national television about Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis OB/GYN. As part of a conditional agreement Rokita and his attorneys reached with the disciplinary commission, he signed an affidavit stating, in part, that he could not have defended himself in the face of allegations that he violated two rules of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys.
In particular, the attorney general was reprimanded for his statements during a Fox News interview calling Bernard an “abortion activist acting as a doctor – with a history of failing to report.” The second part of his statement referred to the requirement to report the abortions she performed to the Indiana Department of Health. In his conditional agreement which settled the case with a reprimand, Rokita agreed he violated professional conduct rules because his statement could be considered to be about the “doctor’s character, credibility, or reputation” and it had “no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden” Bernard.
Within hours of the Supreme Court issuing the reprimand, Rokita released a defiant public statement. He claimed he could have fought the disciplinary action because he had “evidence and explanation” for everything he had said on television about Bernard. Moreover, he said, he accepted the conditional agreement to “save a lot of taxpayer money and distraction,” and he “was required to sign an affidavit without any modifications” in order to resolve the matter.
The second disciplinary complaint arises from Rokita’s post-reprimand comments. He is charged with violating additional professional conduct rules by making false statements to the Supreme Court in the conditional agreement and accompanying affidavit, and with “prejudicing the administration of justice” by issuing a press release that contradicted his sworn statement in the conditional agreement.
Rokita argued the disciplinary commission is trying to “have it both ways” by first saying the second complaint is not about the press release he issued after being reprimanded, but then using the press release as the basis for this action. He asserted the commission is ignoring the First Amendment protections that covered him because he was running for reelection.
“The First Amendment protections are at their strongest when a political candidate is speaking to the public about important issues – and no law license issued by this Court can be conditioned on limiting such a right,” Rokita said in his reply filing. He cited to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling Citizens United v. FEC which held, in part, the government is required to prove that any law restricting political speech “furthers a compelling interest.”
“Attorney General Rokita’s compelling interest in speaking to the public about the public reprimand he received as the 2024 campaign began in earnest outweighs the Commission’s purported justifications for seeking to discipline him for those statements,” Rokita continued in his filing.
The disciplinary commission reiterated the second complaint is charging the attorney general for “making false statements and misrepresentations” to the Supreme Court, rather than the comments he made to the public. References to his post-reprimand press release, the commission asserted in its opposition brief, are used to “demonstrate his lack of candor” to the Indiana justices.
“Here, the State has a compelling interest in moving forward with this proceeding to protect the public and the Court from an attorney’s alleged deceit in a sworn submission to the Court. This proceeding also furthers the State’s interest in promoting confidence in the integrity and administration of the justice system, by holding a lawyer accountable for his unethical behavior and underscoring that ‘no one is above the law,’” the commission argued in its brief, dismissing Rokita’s argument that his comments are protected political expression under the Indiana Constitution.
“(Rokita) has no constitutional right to make false statements to this Court and then highlight that falsity in a press release mass published from a government listserv,” the commission asserted.
In addition to asserting the commission is violating his right to free speech, Rokita claimed he is being targeted by the commission for political reasons. He described the commission as being “overzealous” and subjecting him to “harassing and burdensome discovery,” which included sitting for an eight-hour deposition and having two of his senior staff members deposed as well.
The commission’s opposition brief contained excerpts of Rokita’s deposition. In one exchange, the attorney general used the term “weaponization.” When he was asked to explain, he replied, “That the process that you employ, that you oversee, that the Court oversees regarding attorney discipline is weaponized in a political way to go after political enemies.”
Also, Rokita accused the commission of filing the complaint as a political retaliation against him for highlighting the “appearance of impropriety” and the “potential bias” of commission members. He claimed the chair of the commission campaigned for the Democratic candidate in the 2024 attorney general’s race, Destiny Wells, while the investigation that led to the second complaint against him was ongoing. Moreover, he asserted the commission is punishing him for making public a proposal to change the admission and disciplinary rules, which, he said, offered “sharp criticism” of the disciplinary body.
The commission blasted Rokita’s allegations.
Rokita asserted the commission filed the complaint within weeks of his publicly releasing his proposed rule changes. However, the commission’s opposition brief countered, the attorney general was attempting to “create the suspicion of retaliation” by publicizing his proposal close to the investigation’s deadline of Feb. 4, 2025. In addition, the commission noted, contrary to Rokita’s assertions, he brought up his rules proposal during his deposition, rather than being asked “multiple questions” about it.
The commission maintained it was “fair and impartial” during the investigation, working around the attorney general’s schedule and giving him extra time to provide answers or responses to the subpoenas.
“Contrary to (Rokita’s) unfounded challenges suggesting that the Commission is biased against him, the Commission fully expects that the evidence at hearing will show that (he) was afforded due process and great deference throughout the investigation,” the commission stated in its opposition brief. “He received all the standard tenets of due process through the procedures prescribed in (Indiana attorney) Admission and Discipline Rule 23.”
The case is In the Matter of Theodore E. Rokita, 25S-DI-29.
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.
