Indiana’s Attorney-Discipline Debacle: The Supreme Court Betrays Fairness in the Rokita Case

This Indiana Supreme Court is an Embarrasment to the Rule of Law

In a stunning display of institutional hubris, the Indiana Supreme Court has done what it openly prides itself on never doing—pervert the appearance of justice in the attorney-discipline process. In the Matter of Theodore E. Rokita (decided July 18, 2025), the Court abandoned its own carefully-crafted Rule 23 procedures, appointed a politically loaded three-judge panel behind closed doors, and left every Hoosier wondering whether fairness—or even confidence—has any place left in Indiana.

Rule 23: Broken Promise, Broken Process

Rule 23 was designed to safeguard the discipline process by ensuring impartiality and transparency. It outlines a strict sequence: a complaint is filed, a hearing officer (not an insider panel) is appointed, evidence is presented, and only then does the Court review. In Rokita, however, the Court flipped that sequence entirely—declining to hear argument on a motion to dismiss, immediately appointing a panel of three hearing officers, and relegating due process to a political afterthought.

That panel includes two appellate judges—Cale J. Bradford and Nancy H. Vaidik—and a private attorney and former magistrate, William G. Hussmann, Jr. All of whom stand to be paid handsomely for this new lucrative state position. 2 of the 3 are already on the state's payroll, and now they get to make more money. HE finds this wrong, wrong, wrong.

Never mind that motions to dismiss—to say nothing of appointment of hearing officers—should be squarely within the courts’ consistent procedural framework. Rule 23(14)(a)(3) states specifically that “no motion to dismiss…shall be entertained” by a hearing officer. Rokita cleverly filed his motion to dismiss before the Court and not before any hearing officer, averting that rule—yet the Commission rightly rebuked it as “procedurally improper.”

This isn’t innovation—it’s a convenient shortcut to avoid scrutiny. The Court’s own justice, Slaughter, admitted that this approach was his second preference, baking in the risk that justice might be sacrificed on the altar of expediency.

Insider Panel in the AG’s Disciplinary Process? Absurd.

To even entertain an insider panel in an attorney-discipline case involving the Attorney General of the state—particularly when motions to dismiss were unorthodoxly side-stepped—is a conflict begging for public distrust. Rule 23 prescribes hearings before a single hearing officer precisely to neutralize political bias. The Supreme Court’s appointment of a trio—especially including two appellate judges—looks like stacking the deck.

This isn’t just procedural—this is symbolic. Indiana is now inviting skepticism that discipline is dispensed based on politics, not principle. The state's highest court desperately needs to show that no one, not even an AG, is above equal process.

Constitutional Overreach—the Court’s Jurisdiction Isn’t Absolute

The Indiana Constitution, Article 7, Section 4, grants original jurisdiction over attorney discipline to the Supreme Court—but nowhere does it empower the Court to rewrite or disregard its own procedural safeguards. To claim exclusive jurisdiction is to unmoor accountability. In America, no body should hold unchecked power of that caliber—not even a state’s high court.

Indiana Should Be Ashamed

Hoosiers deserve better than this: an open, equitable process where motions to dismiss are heard, hearing panels are fair, and the discipline process remains impartial—even—or especially—when the respondent is the state’s top law-enforcer.

Who gains from this charade? Not the public. Not aspiring lawyers. Not the integrity of Indiana’s legal system. It’s a betrayal of every law student who once believed in the rule of law, and a slap in the face of every citizen who expects their judiciary to uphold, not erode, fairness.

Until Rule 23 is restored—and the Court publicly recommits to transparent justice—Indiana should halt its law school enrollment and bar admissions. Let this rot in the headlines until the state’s legal conscience is recalibrated.

To recap this newest travesty of justice in a long line of Indiana Attorney Discipline cases that demand FBI review:

• Rule 23 was sidestepped—a hearing officer should have heard the motion first.

• A hand-picked panel was appointed—Bradford, Vaidik, and Hussmann—undermining impartiality.

• Procedural impropriety was acknowledged, with the Disciplinary Commission calling Rokita’s tactics improper.

• The Court’s exclusive jurisdiction is being wielded arrogantly, raising serious constitutional alarms, they ignore or simply abuse, regularly.

• The message to future lawyers and the public: Indiana’s attorney-discipline system is broken. Don't be a lawyer or law student in this flawed state.