Indiana’s Attorney Discipline System: A Fiefdom Free from Constitutional Checks, Far Down The Perverbial Slippery Slope

Attorney General Todd Rokita, a Legal Ethics Lighten Rod, publicly called for reforms following his own disciplinary proceedings and that meaningful structural changes. Even so his behavior has not changed. Recently using his office to sue for his own antique jet ski. See https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/the-ending-of-ag-rokita-s-attorney-discipline-case-by-mooting-it-leaves-many-unanswered-questions and https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/judge-rejects-challenge-of-ag-rokita-in-jet-ski-case-leaves-broader-questions-unanswered His ethical conduct is "rich."

Attorney discipline is meant to protect the public, preserve confidence in the courts, and hold lawyers accountable for professional misconduct. However, Indiana’s system has evolved into an insular judicial machine. It frequently mixes legitimate regulation with selective enforcement, institutional favoritism, and what critics view as lawfare against lawyers marked as persona non grata. The system has eroded confidence in the Courts, clearly failed to protect and actually hurt the public, especially poor clients unable to afford a bankruptcy attorney, operates as protection racket for the most connected.

Most lawyer-discipline systems already operate as insider networks policing insiders. Indiana’s version is especially troubling because Admission and Discipline Rule 23 places absolute and "exclusive" control under the Indiana Supreme Court and its disciplinary apparatus.

While this structure is routinely defended under traditional court-power doctrines, lawful does not mean fair, transparent, or objective. When evaluated alongside how every other licensed profession in the state is treated, Indiana’s attorney discipline system emerges as a unique anomaly that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause on its face.

Many lawyers and even Attorney General Todd Rokita publicly called for reforms following his own disciplinary proceedings and that meaningful structural changes have not occurred. Chief Justice Loretta Rush holds the power as long as disputes are governed under the provisions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23 of the Supreme Court of Indiana.

CJ Loretta Rush (right) and Justice Mark S. Massa, also appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Governor Mitch Daniels in March 2012. He is a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and came to Indiana in 1979 to attend Indiana University. He graduated from IU in 1983 with a degree in journalism, and after internships at the South Bend Tribune and Milwaukee Sentinel, he joined the staff of The Evansville Press.

Calls for reform are not coming solely from critics outside the system. As far back as 2024, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita publicly held a press conference asking for significant changes to Indiana's attorney disciplinary process after becoming the subject of multiple grievances and disciplinary proceedings.

AG Rokita argued that the system was vulnerable to politically-motivated complaints, lacked sufficient transparency, and could be weaponized against attorneys based on speech or political viewpoints rather than genuine misconduct. He specifically urged greater protections for First Amendment activity and more public accountability within the disciplinary process.

Yet despite those highly publicized concerns and despite growing criticism from lawyers and court observers, no significant structural reforms have occurred.

Critics argue that meaningful reform is unlikely so long as the existing system remains almost entirely under the authority of the Indiana Supreme Court. In their view, Chief Justice Loretta Rush, as the head of Indiana's judicial branch during much of this period, has presided over a system in which the judiciary retains virtually all meaningful power over attorney discipline while outside oversight remains minimal. (This story won't go away until she goes away.)

Supporters of the current system argue that judicial independence requires the Supreme Court to retain primary authority over lawyer regulation. Critics respond that independence should not mean insulation from accountability. They contend that without increased transparency, independent review, and public participation, confidence in Indiana's attorney disciplinary system will continue to erode regardless of who occupies the office of chief justice.

The Double Standard: How Indiana Treats Other Professionals

To understand how uniquely punitive and insulated the legal disciplinary machine is, one must look at how Indiana regulates every other licensed professional. Doctors, nurses, accountants, engineers, and architects are governed through an entirely different constitutional framework overseen by the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency (PLA).

The systemic disparities between these two frameworks expose a profound institutional double standard: These are civil cases, not criminal, but the rules of civil procedure don't apply, and the protections of Criminal Proceedure, Criminal Code, and criminal common law also don't apply, leaving lawyers defending ethics cases find themselves with less rights than criminals. That must also violate equal protection. Law Schools don't teach this reality.

Under the PLA's Administrative Procedure Guidelines, a licensee benefits from a strict separation of powers. A complaint is filed, the executive branch investigates via the Attorney General's Office, and a hearing occurs before an independent board governed by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act (AOPA).

If that board acts arbitrarily, the professional has a statutory right to appeal to an independent, neutral state trial court.

Lawyers are completely excluded from these baseline protections. Because the Supreme Court claims "exclusive jurisdiction" over the bar, an accused attorney cannot appeal an unfair disciplinary action to an independent court. The entity that targets them is the exact same entity that acts as the final judge, jury, and executioner.

Three Pillars of a Biased Framework

The structural differences between attorney discipline and standard professional licensing boil down to three fatal flaws within Indiana's Rule 23:

1. A Total Failure of Separation of Powers

For any other professional, three distinct entities must align to strip a license: an investigator, a separate state prosecutor (the Attorney General), and an independent board. Under Rule 23, the Indiana Supreme Court holds all the cards. It writes the ethical rules, employs the investigators, hires the prosecutors, appoints the hearing officers, and rules on the final appeal. This lacks any meaningful system of checks and balances.

2. Insider Tribunals With Insufficient Civilian Oversight

By law, the executive boards regulating medical and corporate professions must include independent public members to prevent industry collusion. Conversely, the attorney disciplinary apparatus is an insider enclave. While it includes a token non-lawyer presence, the machine is completely dominated by judicial insiders hand-picked by the Supreme Court itself.

3. Elimination of the Appellate Safety Net

If a licensing board acts maliciously or makes a legal error against a plumber or a nurse, that citizen can file a lawsuit in a state trial court under AOPA to secure a fresh, unbiased judicial review. When a lawyer faces career destruction from the Disciplinary Commission, they are blocked from trial courts. Their only recourse is to appeal directly to the top of the very same pyramid that prosecuted them.

The Facially Discriminatory Equal Protection Violation

This structural disparity represents a facially discriminatory framework that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state has split its licensed workforce into two arbitrary classes: non-lawyer professionals who receive full administrative due process, a separation of powers, and independent judicial review; and lawyers, who receive none.

While states possess a rational basis to enforce ethical compliance within the legal bar, they have no rational basis to strip one specific class of licensed citizens of basic procedural due process. There is no legitimate governmental interest served by denying lawyers an independent appellate venue, a separation of investigatory and judicial functions, or standard administrative protections. By insulating attorney discipline from the constitutional checks that govern every other career in the state, Indiana has created a self-protecting fiefdom.

Better Models Exist

Other states prove that protecting the public does not require stripping practitioners of baseline fairness:

• Texas: Utilizes evidentiary panels that include public members and routes appeals through an independent, specialized Board of Disciplinary Appeals.

• Florida: Features balanced grievance committees composed of both lawyers and nonlawyers, running parallel to a consumer assistance screening program that filters out frivolous complaints.

• Arizona: Places a heavy emphasis on diversion alternatives for minor misconduct, prioritizing office-management education and rehabilitation over career-ending public sanctions.

  
  

A Blueprint for Reform

Indiana must dismantle its insular system and adopt standard structural checks. The state should implement:

• Public-majority panels to screen initial grievances and eliminate internal institutional bias.

• Independent administrative review by an outside body before formal charges can ever be filed.

• Mandatory mediation for minor client service, fee, and communication disputes to avoid unnecessary prosecution, knows as "Doug's Law."

• Annual public statistics explicitly detailing complaints, dismissals, sanctions, and judicial recusal data.

• An independent ombudsman or Inspector General with the statutory authority to investigate abuses within the disciplinary process itself.

• Strict recusal rules when politically sensitive lawyers, judges, court insiders, or vocal court critics are targeted.

This reform is not about coddling attorneys; it is about protecting the integrity of justice by providing a gatekeeper similar to that enjoyed by Indiana Medical Doctors. When discipline becomes an insulated tool for insider favoritism or judicial power politics, the damage spreads to clients, voters, and the rule of law.

There were plenty of red flags: In November 1998, before Rush's first term as a Tippecanoe County judge began, a former juvenile client kicked in the front door of Rush's home and tried to kill her husband. Rush hid their children and tried to get help, but she and her husband both were injured and she later had to have surgery. All the lawyers she has suspended never had a client mad enough to attempt murder. She clearly was not a good lawyer, so she became a judge and Chief Justice. Only in Indiana. Time to send her back to her hometown, Scranton, PA?

Under Chief Justice Loretta Rush, Indiana’s courts have repeatedly turned inward, shielding the institution and dismissing critics rather than addressing structural rot. True accountability requires transparency. Indiana must reform its attorney-discipline system and align it with standard constitutional protections before more Hoosiers conclude that equal justice under the law is a myth.

Another alternative is to let the market regulate lawyers and the criminal justice system proseucte criminal lawyers, "Ethics" are vague; Ethical Rules too Complex; Application inconsistant and likely unConstitutional in Indiana.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty but charges have been filed against an Indianapolis man who is accused of threatening Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush.

According to MyCase, Michael Cable, 52, was been charged with intimidation of a judge or bailiff, a level 5 felony. He was charged on May 15 in Marion Superior Court, but the case had been sealed until Tuesday. HE does not seek to inflame politic violence and has no knowledge of the facts of the above threat at all.