image
John Krull

The column was originally published by TheStatehouseFile.com

By John Krull
TheStatehouseFile.com
February 3, 2025

Todd Rokita feels sorry for himself.

Indiana’s attorney general is upset because the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission found—once again—that the Hoosier state’s top lawyer violated rules of professional conduct. The commission did not recommend any specific punishment for Rokita, possibly because commission members decided it’s up to the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court to decide if they want to continue letting the attorney general use them as a doormat.

The commission’s detailed, lengthy complaint—the body and the exhibits run to 95 pages—can be boiled down to one sentence:

Todd Rokita lied.

To the disciplinary commission.

To the justices of the state’s highest court.

To the court itself.

He voluntarily signed an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, in which he acknowledged he had violated two rules of conduct and could not defend himself if things went to court. He agreed he made public statements designed to “embarrass, delay or burden” Dr. Caitlin Bernard, the Indiana doctor who performed a legal abortion for a 10-year-old Ohio girl who had been raped.

This violated established ethical strictures for lawyers.

Any other Indiana attorney who had committed such an egregious violation likely would have received a stiff punishment—perhaps a law license suspension or some other penalty designed to drive home the point that the court is not to be trifled with.

Rokita received the lightest of slaps on the wrist—a mild reprimand.

Two hours after the reprimand came down, Rokita’s office issued, at his direction, a statement saying he hadn’t done anything wrong.

It was a direct contradiction of his affidavit—as the disciplinary commission makes devastatingly clear on page 15 of its complaint. There, the complaint allows Rokita to argue with himself by putting statements he made under penalty of perjury alongside ones he made in his public statement.

The two Todds have quite a debate on that page.

Rokita now feels aggrieved. He thinks it is unfair for the commission or anyone else to notice that he talks out of multiple sides of his mouth.

Following this latest complaint, Rokita once again decided to flap his yap:

“The lawfare continues and is aimed at silencing me because they don’t like what I say on behalf of Hoosiers who spoke loudly at the ballot box recently. This is an attempt to take away their voices as well.

“These never ending investigations have created unnecessary distractions and expenses, and despite my offer to take responsibility well over a year ago, this matter continues to be revisited by politically passionate people who have weaponized the process, going well beyond what is fair and appropriate.

“The claim that my press statement contradicts the agreement is wrong. The agreement required me to acknowledge the disciplinary process and accept the reprimand, which I did — it did not require me to forfeit my right to speak truthfully about what happened regarding a major political and policy matter. I upheld my obligations while also defending myself against mischaracterizations that were circulating for weeks while being prohibited from speaking. Once able, I spoke truthfully.

“I remain committed to enforcing the law, protecting Hoosiers, and defending their rights, undeterred by efforts to create further controversy where none should exist.”

Yup, he delivered yet another typical Todd Rokita performance.

He blamed everyone else for something dumb he did.

The fact is Todd Rokita has no one to blame for the mess he’s in but himself.

The state Supreme Court gave him a sweetheart deal the last time around, but he couldn’t leave well enough alone.

He forced the court to determine whether he lied under oath or lied to the public—and he spent months telling the justices who had given him a gift “thanks, but no thanks.”

Now, the justices of the Indiana Supreme Court have a choice to make.

Will they let Rokita off the hook again or will they defend the integrity of the judicial process?

Legacies are on the line.

Todd Rokita has already established his. He’ll go into the history books as a reckless political opportunist who showed as much respect for the rule of law as a wrecking ball does for a picture window.

But the legacy of Chief Justice Loretta Rush’s court has yet to be written.

Will that court’s legacy be that it reined in Rokita and restored the rule of law?

Or that it let him continue to run rogue?

John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students. The views expressed are those of the author only and should not be attributed to Franklin College.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Indiana Citizen or any other affiliated organization.

Related Posts