Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has faced three disciplinary investigations—and one public reprimand—for statements he has made while serving as the state’s top lawyer.
However, he may not face fallout from the second investigation, if there is any fallout at all, until well after the November election. Legal experts have told The Indiana Citizen it is likely that an Indiana Supreme Court order filed earlier this month has delayed a resolution of that second investigation until February.
The second investigation of Rokita is linked to the combative statement he released hours after being publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court on Nov. 2, 2023. At least two grievances were filed by Indianapolis attorneys within a few days, alleging Rokita’s comments indicated he was not being truthful with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission—and did not show contrition for his actions—after the first investigation and reprimand.
A second investigation of Rokita was then opened in November 2023. Under the Indiana Supreme Court’s admission and discipline rules, the disciplinary commission has one year from either the date the grievance is received or the date the response is demanded to complete its work and take action.
The commission can ask the Supreme Court for more time, and that appears to have happened in this case. An order, signed by Chief Justice Loretta Rush and issued Sept. 4, now sets an early February 2025 deadline for a case believed to be Rokita’s second disciplinary investigation.
“On September 3, 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission (‘Commission’) filed its ‘First Petition for Extension of Time for Investigation’ concerning its file numbers 24-0618 and 24-0608,” the Supreme Court’s order reads.
“The Commission seeks 90-day extensions in each of the two matters,” the order continues.
“Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the petition and extends the Commission’s deadline to complete its investigations of matters 24-0618 and 24-0608 to and including February 4, 2025, for matter 24-0618, and to and including February 6, 2025, for matter 24-0608.”
The Supreme Court’s order does not specifically mention Rokita. Instead, it just refers to the case file numbers 24-0608 and 24-0618.
Retired attorney Paula Cardoza-Jones, who served more than two years as the staff attorney to the disciplinary commission, and Indianapolis attorney Bill Groth filed their grievances in November 2023. They have analyzed the letters that they both have received from the disciplinary commission and concluded that the case file numbers refer to Rokita’s second disciplinary investigation.
“I submitted my second grievance against Rokita to the Commission on November 5, 2023, so the one-year deadline is approaching,” Cardoza-Jones said in an email. “I believe that the Commission requested and was granted an extension of the 12-month deadline in plenty of time to avoid any dispute over whether it would have been deemed dismissed.”
The Indiana Citizen did reach out for a statement from Rokita, but his office said he would not be commenting.
Although the disciplinary commission could decide to file charges or drop the investigation at any time, the extension indicates the commission will not be taking action until after the Nov. 5 election, in which Rokita is seeking a second term as attorney general, and the January inauguration.
Moreover, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of disciplinary matters. So, despite any recommendation the disciplinary commission makes in February about Rokita, the justices may need additional time to consider and render a final decision.
If Rokita is found to have violated the Indiana rules of attorney professional conduct, he could face a sanction ranging from another reprimand to a temporary suspension of his law license to disbarment.
Linking the numbers to Rokita
Cardoza-Jones analyzed her correspondence with the commission and said she is confident that case file number 24-0608 refers to the investigation opened based on her grievance.
In summer 2022, Indianapolis OB/GYN Dr. Caitlin Bernard disclosed to The Indianapolis Star that she had provided abortion services to a 10-year-old Ohio girl who was six weeks and three days pregnant after being raped. Rokita subsequently made several public statements about Bernard and disclosed that his office was investigating her.
His actions resulted in the first disciplinary investigation. It concluded in early November 2023 with the Indiana Supreme Court unanimously concluding Rokita should be disciplined. A 3-2 majority accepted a conditional agreement negotiated between the attorney general’s lawyers from Schaerr Jaffe, a Washington, D.C.-based firm and Ammeen Valenzuela Associates in Indianapolis and the disciplinary commission. Two members of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Rush, would have imposed stronger sanctions on Rokita because of the “scope and breadth of the admitted misconduct.”
Under the terms of that agreement, Rokita was publicly reprimanded for appearing on Fox News and calling Bernard “an abortion activist acting as a doctor” with a history of failing to file her medical reports as required by state law.
The same day he was reprimanded, Rokita issued a defiant response. He said his case “boiled down to a truthful 16-word answer” he gave about Bernard and he agreed to the reprimand to bring the case to a conclusion in order to save taxpayers money.
Cardoza-Jones subsequently filed grievances against Rokita and the three attorneys who represented him before the disciplinary commission in the first investigation. The commission replied with four separate letters acknowledging receipt of her grievances, but they did not identify Rokita or any of his attorneys by their names. Instead, the commission listed the case file numbers, 24-0608, 24-0609, 24-0610 and 24-0611.
When it later dismissed the grievances against the three attorneys representing Rokita, the commission sent another letter updating Cardoza-Jones that listed the attorneys’ names but did not include the file numbers. Since the grievances against the three lawyers are no longer under investigation, Cardoza-Jones concluded by process of elimination that 24-0608 is the file number given to the second disciplinary investigation opened into Rokita because of her grievance.
Although Groth said he does not have any correspondence from the commission listing case file numbers, he agreed with Cardoza-Jones’ analysis.
“Based on review of the relevant documents in my possession, I arrive at the same conclusion as attorney Cardoza-Jones: that 24-0608 and 24-0618 are the file numbers assigned to the respective grievances she and I independently and separately filed against Rokita in the first few days of November, 2023,” Groth said in an email.
Cardoza-Jones and Groth dated their grievances Nov. 5, 2023, and Nov. 3, 2023, respectively. The order from the Supreme Court states the grievances were filed Nov. 6 and Nov. 8 of last year.
“The fact that an extension of time was sought is a good sign that it is still under the Commission’s consideration,” Cardoza-Jones said in an email.
Year-long deadline
The Indiana Admission and Disciplinary Rule No. 23 gives the disciplinary commission 12 months from the date a grievance is received or the date the subject of the grievance is asked to provide a response to complete its investigation and take action. If the commission does not file a disciplinary complaint by the 12-month deadline, the grievance will be automatically dismissed.
The rule notes that delays in the investigation caused by the respondent either not cooperating or asking for additional time will not be counted toward the 12-month deadline. The Supreme Court’s Sept. 4 order seems to implicate Rokita in causing some of the delays.
The order states, “The respondent requested and was granted multiple extensions of time to respond to the two grievances; some materials from four subpoenas duces tecum issued to the respondent in May 2024 remain outstanding; and a deposition of the respondent originally scheduled for August 2024 needed to be rescheduled due to outstanding discovery issues as well as proposed time constraints.”
In an unrelated third investigation into Rokita’s actions since he was elected attorney general in 2020, he also could face discipline for statements he made during a news conference about the terminated pregnancy reports, or TPRs, filed with the Indiana Department of Health. Under state law, health-care providers must file the TPRs with the health department after every abortion.
Groth filed this latest grievance with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission after an April 2024 news conference during which he publicized his office’s official advisory opinion on the terminated pregnancy reports. Groth asserted Rokita violated the state’s rules for professional conduct for attorneys by rendering an opinion that TPRs were public records, when the health department had not asked for any legal advice on that matter, and for his suggestion that members of the public could sue the health department if they are not allowed access to the TPRs.
The disciplinary commission sent a letter to Rokita on July 1 notifying him of the grievance and demanding he provide a written response within 30 days.
© 2024 The Indiana Citizen The Indiana Citizen (indianacitizen.org), a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed, engaged Hoosier citizens.