Indiana Actually Honored Paralegals in May. Its New Rules Are Opening the Door Wider — Nine Years After Loretta Rush Suspended a Lawyer Over His Use of an Independent Paralegal

A TROUBLING INDIANA BAR ASSOCIATION PARALEGAL FREE LUNCH EARLIER THIS YEAR

Indiana Says It Has Too Few Lawyers. Its New Rules Are Opening the Door Wider — Nine Years After Doug Bernacchi Was Suspended in Part Over an Independent Paralegal

By Hoosier Enquirer Staff

INDIANAPOLIS — Hypocracy is the norm for Lorett Rush, Indiana's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indiana (SCOIN). Indiana now says it has a lawyer shortage serious enough to threaten access to justice, public safety and the civic health of rural communities. Hypocrisy fuels rebellion. If you want a glimpse of what a government bureaucrat does in the way of atrocities look at what she has allowed and what she has done. Sure it takes time but it is the truth on the tip of her own nose!

Chief Justice Loretta Rush has described the problem as a “deepening crisis,” noting that Indiana ranks “43rd” nationally (actually 47/50) in lawyers per capita, that two law schools have closed in the past decade and that some counties are down to only a handful of practicing attorneys. (Indiana Government)

But instead of looking in the mirror and see the huge spect of dirt/fault on her own nose, she refuses to address why?

Her reign of terror has attracted too many good lawyers in the state, suspending them when she would be incapable of doing as good of job herself in solo or small private practice,

She has destroyed people to the extent that no one in their right mind would seek to practice law in Indiana vs. other far more lucrative and inviting courts. She was a lower court juvenile justice judge in a small county before her rocketing to DEI power or by way of a quid pro quo , helping Gov. Mitch Daniels who has not denied he sold her the SCOIN bench for his job at Purdue?

Regardless she is the head of the snake and HE has also called her a “mental midget.” HE has called for her resignation and AG, IGA, and Governor oversight. She’s been so bad for the state, it citizens and its lawyers. He’s protected mean, criminal, and other incompetent judges, having turn the state into a state of courts ruling based not on fair, equity or precedent but on ideology and indentity politics and selective prosecution of lawyers with regard to the Constitution or due process.

Sadly her Indiana Supreme Court’s response has been to loosen old barriers, broaden who may perform legal work under supervision and create new paths into the profession. Effective Aug. 1, 2026, the Court expanded eligibility for legal interns, allowed certain graduates of non-ABA-accredited U.S. law schools to seek waivers of educational requirements, broadened pathways for foreign-trained lawyers and made it easier for experienced out-of-state attorneys to enter Indiana practice. (Indiana Government)

That is a significant policy shift, and it creates an uncomfortable historical contrast with a disciplinary case the Court decided nine years ago.

In 2017, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended longtime northern Indiana lawyer Doug Bernacchi for at least one year without automatic reinstatement. The Court found several violations, including incompetent representation, an unreasonable fee, improper fee-sharing with a nonlawyer and obstruction of the disciplinary process. It also specifically found a violation of Professional Conduct Rule 5.3 and then-existing Guideline 9.1 because Bernacchi used Mario Sims, an independent contract paralegal, rather than an employee. (Justia Law)

Bernacchi remains suspended nearly nine years later.

Today, however, Indiana’s own Professional Conduct Rule 5.3 commentary expressly says that nonlawyer assistants may be employees or independent contractors, so long as the lawyer appropriately supervises them and remains responsible for their work. The rule specifically identifies paralegals, investigators, law-student interns and other paraprofessionals as legitimate participants in the delivery of legal services. (Indiana Government)

That does not erase the other findings in Bernacchi’s case. It does make the evolution of Indiana’s rules impossible to ignore.

Indiana Is Now Expanding Who May Perform Legal Work

The change is broader than paralegals.

Under amended Admission and Discipline Rule 2.1, a certified legal intern can do considerably more than clerical or research work. Under supervision, an intern may interview clients, advise them, negotiate on their behalf and represent parties in Indiana judicial or administrative proceedings. The supervising lawyer remains responsible, the client must be told the person is an intern rather than a licensed lawyer, and the supervising attorney must be present in open court. (MyBle) How can this be? It violates this Court's own precedent in IN Re Doug Bernacchi. Are they sua sponte going to fix that court order?

The 2026 amendments go further. Law students attending certain non-ABA-approved American law schools may now qualify for legal-intern status if they could later seek an educational waiver. Graduates who qualify to pursue that waiver may likewise work as supervised legal interns while their applications move through the system. (Indiana Government)

Indiana has also created a broader waiver process under new Rule 13.1. Graduates of non-ABA-approved U.S. law schools may ask the Board of Law Examiners to waive the traditional educational requirement if their education and experience justify it. Some lawyers educated outside the United States may also seek waivers after completing an American-law graduate degree at an ABA-approved school. The Board must consider whether granting a waiver is in the public interest, and any waiver remains subject to final Indiana Supreme Court approval. (Indiana Government)

Calling that an “extraordinary law license” would not be technically precise. It is better described as an extraordinary waiver pathway into Indiana bar eligibility, coupled with expanded legal-intern authority. But the practical significance is substantial: Indiana is actively searching for ways to get more people into legal service sooner and through pathways that would have been far more restrictive only a few years ago.

The Lawyer Shortage Changed the Conversation

The Court did not make these changes in a vacuum.

Its Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future concluded that Indiana had roughly 2.26 lawyers per 1,000 residents in 2024, placing the state 43rd nationally. About 19,000 attorneys held active Indiana licenses, but the number actually practicing inside the state was closer to 16,000. The shortage is especially severe in rural counties, where lawyers tend to be older and younger attorneys are not replacing retirees quickly enough. (Indiana Government)

The Commission recommended new licensure models, alternative pathways into practice, incentives for rural lawyers, public-service scholarships and experimentation with new ways of delivering legal services. The Supreme Court embraced many of those ideas and has continued changing its admissions rules. (Indiana Government)

Rush herself put the issue plainly in her 2026 State of the Judiciary address: Indiana has a “deepening crisis” because too few lawyers are available, particularly prosecutors and public defenders. (Indiana Government)

In other words, Indiana now sees supervised nontraditional legal service as part of the solution.

That makes the old Bernacchi case worth looking at again.

What Bernacchi’s Case Actually Said

Any fair comparison has to acknowledge that Bernacchi was not suspended simply for hiring a paralegal.

The Court’s 2017 opinion found that he incompetently handled a child-support matter, charged an unreasonable fee, improperly shared legal fees with Sims and attempted to interfere with the disciplinary investigation. Bernacchi had admitted the amended complaint allegations under oath before the final sanctions hearing, and the Court later treated his challenge to those findings as waived. (Justia Law)

The opinion nevertheless used language that now stands out. It specifically listed as misconduct his “using a nonlawyer legal assistant who was not an employee,” under Rule 5.3 and Guideline 9.1. (Justia Law)

Today’s Rule 5.3 commentary expressly recognizes independent contractors.

That does not retroactively erase a 2017 judgment. Rules change, ethical standards evolve and disciplinary decisions are ordinarily judged under the rules in effect at the time.

But it does create a legitimate fairness question when a lawyer remains suspended almost a decade later while the state has moved in the opposite policy direction.

Bernacchi has consistently maintained that Sims was an independent contract paralegal who performed work for only a small fraction of his practice. He disputes the Court’s fee-sharing characterization and has challenged other factual findings from the proceeding. Those claims remain contested and do not displace the published Supreme Court opinion.

What has changed is the environment surrounding them.

From Employee-Only Rules to Independent Contractors and Legal Interns

Indiana’s current system recognizes that legal work can be divided among lawyers, paralegals, legal interns and other supervised professionals. Rule 5.3 says nonlawyer assistants can be independent contractors. Certified legal interns can advise clients and appear in proceedings under supervision. Educational waivers may permit graduates of nontraditional law schools to pursue Indiana admission. Experienced lawyers from other states can qualify for admission without examination under broader rules. (Indiana Government)

That represents a significant philosophical evolution.

The state is effectively saying that the answer to its access-to-justice problem is not to insist that every legal task be performed personally by a traditionally educated, conventionally admitted Indiana lawyer. Instead, it is placing greater emphasis on supervision, accountability and competence.

That principle is strikingly similar to what Rule 5.3 now says about paralegals: the important issue is not whether the assistant sits on the lawyer’s payroll. The important issue is whether the lawyer supervises the work and remains professionally responsible for it.

And Indiana Celebrates Paralegals

The irony is not just difficult to miss. It is impossible to ignore; yet, Rush continues to ignore her own injustices/crimes.

The Indianapolis Bar Association has for years held a Paralegal Appreciation Luncheon recognizing the contribution paralegals make to legal practice. Recent honorees have been praised for research, discovery work, motion practice, case management and their ability to make legal teams function more effectively. (Indiana Lawyer)

HE was not able to independently locate a public listing for a May 2026 luncheon, so that particular date should be confirmed before publication. But the annual event itself is well established, and its message could hardly be clearer: paralegals are no longer treated as peripheral office help. They are viewed as essential members of modern legal teams. (Indiana Lawyer)

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, Indiana’s lawyer shortage makes competent paralegals more valuable than ever.

The question is whether Indiana’s disciplinary system has kept pace with the very policy evolution the Court is now promoting.

One Year Became Nearly Nine

Bernacchi’s suspension was for not less than one year without automatic reinstatement. That phrase matters. It meant he did not automatically regain his license when the first year expired; he had to petition for reinstatement and satisfy Indiana’s reinstatement requirements. (Indiana Courts)

Still, nearly nine years is not one year.

The formal answer is that the suspension remains in place because reinstatement has not occurred. The public-policy question is whether Indiana has an adequate mechanism for reconsidering an old disciplinary judgment when the profession itself has changed dramatically and when a portion of the conduct once cited as improper now fits comfortably within modern legal-practice rules.

The Court is not required to conclude Bernacchi was wrongly disciplined merely because current rules differ from those applied in 2017. Nor does the independent-contractor language answer the other violations found against him.

But it does strengthen the argument for an honest reexamination rather than pretending nothing has changed.

Rush Now Confronts the Consequences of Her Own Reform Agenda

Rush deserves credit for acknowledging Indiana’s attorney shortage and supporting efforts to address it. The Commission on Indiana’s Legal Future has produced significant changes instead of merely another government report gathering dust. The Court is experimenting with admissions, internships, rural-practice incentives and different methods of getting legal help to people who need it. (Indiana Government)

But reform inevitably creates comparisons with the past.

Indiana now tells lawyers that independent-contract paralegals are acceptable if properly supervised. It authorizes legal interns who are not yet licensed lawyers to advise, negotiate and represent clients under supervision. It permits applicants from nontraditional legal-education backgrounds to seek waivers that could eventually lead to full Indiana admission. (Indiana Government)

Against that backdrop sits a lawyer who practiced for 27 years, received a minimum one-year suspension in 2017 and remains outside the profession almost nine years later, with one of the expressly listed violations having been the use of a nonemployee legal assistant.

That contrast does not decide the case.

It does make ignoring it harder.

Indiana Should Be Willing to Revisit Its Own Work

A judiciary does not undermine itself by acknowledging that legal standards evolve. It strengthens itself when it can distinguish between preserving legitimate discipline and perpetuating an outcome that deserves another look because circumstances, rules or evidence have materially changed.

Indiana is now rewriting its legal system because it desperately needs more lawyers and more legal services. It is opening doors to interns, nontraditional law-school graduates, foreign-trained lawyers and supervised paraprofessionals because the old pipeline is no longer supplying enough people to meet the state’s needs.

That makes 2026 an appropriate time to revisit cases shaped by an older philosophy of legal practice.

The Indiana Supreme Court need not erase its 2017 opinion or presume Bernacchi was right about every disputed fact. It can simply examine whether nearly nine years of suspension remains justified in light of the full record and the profession Indiana itself is now building.

The state cannot simultaneously say that supervised nonlawyer assistance is essential to the future of legal services and refuse even to consider whether an old punishment based partly on an independent paralegal relationship warrants another look.

Indiana says it needs lawyers.

It should also make sure it is not unnecessarily keeping one of them out. Bernacchi was suspended for one-year but remains suspended today. What Gives? That was name of his local South Bend Televison program and it applies here. Rush has proven she can't make sound battlefield decision under pressure.