Indiana's Media Have Covered Rokita's Jet Ski. But Who Is Investigating the Real Story Indiana's Flawed and Failing Justice System? HE Has!

1 hour ago

10 min read

G. Michael Witte at the Center of the Mess
It's my team not yours!

As Attorney General Todd Rokita challenges Indiana's lawyer-disciplinary authorities in federal court, Hoosier Enquirer asks why the state's legal establishment and major newsrooms have not more fully examined whether the regulatory system itself needs reform.

By Jerry Smith | Media Reporter and Editorial Team Member | Hoosier Enquirer |

INDIANAPOLIS - Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has sued the officials responsible for regulating his law license, accusing them of retaliation, selective enforcement and abuse of the disciplinary process. The lawsuit, filed October 1 in federal court, has attracted coverage from some of Indiana's leading news organizations. Much of that reporting has focused on the immediate controversy: an attorney general, a used jet ski, a disgruntled seller and a grievance that Rokita says was the final straw in years of conflict with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission.

But the dispute raises a much larger question, one that Hoosier Enquirer has pressed in its examination of Indiana's legal establishment: What happens when the system entrusted with policing lawyers is itself accused of denying fairness, due process and meaningful accountability?

It is a question that should interest every newspaper publisher, television news director, business executive, law-school dean and practicing attorney in Indiana. It concerns more than Rokita's political career or the reputation of Chief Justice Loretta Rush. It concerns whether the state has built a professional regulatory environment that attracts capable lawyers, treats them fairly and makes legal representation available to ordinary citizens.

The evidence of a legal-workforce problem is no longer seriously disputed. Indiana ranks 43rd nationally in lawyers per capita, and 49 of its 92 counties have been identified as legal deserts. Rural communities face shortages of attorneys, prosecutors and public defenders. Indiana's own judiciary has acknowledged the problem and established a commission to recommend solutions.

What the research establishes

There is already substantial evidence that Indiana faces a serious legal-workforce and access-to-justice problem.

National ranking

47th of 50

Lawyers per capita

Indiana counties

49 of 92

Classified as legal deserts (Practicing lawyers in some counties number less than the judges)

Lawyer density

2.10

Per 1,000 residents (All Becuase of the failed leadership of Chief Justice Loretta Rush and her long term in office. An office she as a juvinile court judge was not equipped to perform and a DEI failure on the record, with a many skeletons in her closet. And ugly pink suits, too.)

Yet the state's media, other than HoosierEnquirer, have not fully answered a question that deserves to be asked alongside the familiar explanations involving law-school debt, rural economics and the closure of law schools: Could Indiana's disciplinary procedures and professional regulatory culture also contribute to the difficulty of attracting and retaining attorneys?

Until they do we will have elder abuse, title theft, crime, and lawyers locating in other states, helping those communities thrive and stay civil. Indiana lacks the basic legal support to operate its public institutions,. and only Loretta Rush is to blame.

As the lone voice in the wilderness, HE is not crying woof, but calling for a change in state leadership of the Legal Profession.

Hoosier Enquirer Investigations and Commentary: Indiana's Legal Ethics and Judicial Accountability

The following 29 articles document Hoosier Enquirer's reporting, investigations and editorial criticism of Indiana's attorney-disciplinary system, judicial leadership, legal profession and access-to-justice problems.

HE has called for Rush's to resign, for oversight, for an FBI investigagtion into her appointment(s) as well her former staff who says she took "cash for kids" and the large number of Indiana adoptions following termination of parental rights, the lack of grandparents' rights in her legal system, and judges that do really stuff, and outside strip clubs, and now threats of violence which she claims to be again under proscuting a nutjob who lost his legal rights or cases by her crazy state legal system out of control.

Enough is enough already. She seems to run every governor and punishes lawyers who stand up to her court abuse or seek a fair hearing in DI cases. Indiana's lawyers and INBAR is afraid to say, "The Emperoress has no clothes."

But worse she really has not clue, no ruder, no sense of justice, or proclivity to fix her own errors or lies in her orders. She only marches with immunity to that of being a demonstrated RINO dressed in not red or blue, but purple.

Of course, judges should not be political, but she is and she's not fair.

If media is about clicks, getting views, reporting on this topic has demonstrated interest by many -- far more than expected. Lawyers, people, politicians, businesses, workers care about courts and justice. HE's stories have been some of the most read that have been publshed so far.

The Outlets That Reported the Lawsuit

The Indianapolis Star, through reporter Cate Charron, covered Rokita's October 1 lawsuit and described his allegations of retaliation, political targeting and disciplinary harassment. Its reporting explained the dispute involving Jess Sampson, the jet ski seller whose grievance helped precipitate the federal action.

The Indiana Lawyer, in an October 2 report by Tom Murphy, examined the lawsuit's allegations, the history of Rokita's disciplinary conflicts and the need for outside counsel to represent the Commission. That publication, which serves the state's legal profession, has also covered Indiana's attorney shortage.

The Indiana Capital Chronicle, through Casey Smith, reported the federal filing, Rokita's First Amendment arguments and the Commission's history of investigating complaints against him.

The Indiana Citizen, through Marilyn Odendahl, provided particularly detailed reporting about the multiple grievances involving Rokita and nearly $500,000 in taxpayer-funded disciplinary-defense expenses. Its coverage also examined the unusual financial and ethical questions arising from the underlying jet ski transaction.

The Indianapolis Business Journal carried the lawsuit report through The Indiana Lawyer. These publications deserve credit for covering a consequential dispute involving the state's chief legal officer and the body responsible for attorney discipline.

But coverage of the filing is not the same thing as an investigation of the institution.

Where are the comprehensive examinations of disciplinary complaint screening, the independence of Commission personnel, procedural safeguards, disputed admissions, the availability of evidentiary hearings and the treatment of attorneys who lack the resources of a statewide elected official?

Those questions remain insufficiently answered in the reporting reviewed by HE.

Television Newsrooms Have Another Assignment

Indiana's major television news organizations also have reason to examine the story beyond its political personalities.

In Indianapolis, that includes WTHR Channel 13, WRTV Channel 6, FOX59 and WISH-TV Channel 8. Elsewhere, major newsrooms include WANE-TV in Fort Wayne, WNDU-TV and WSBT-TV in South Bend, and WFIE-TV in Evansville.

HE did not establish that every one of these outlets has failed to report Rokita's lawsuit. A review of accessible coverage cannot prove the absence of broadcasts, unpublished investigations or stories distributed through other platforms.

Indeed, WRTV deserves particular recognition for its earlier investigative work documenting Indiana's attorney shortage. Its reporting described the consequences for criminal defendants, taxpayers and communities without sufficient legal representation. That investigation helped place the shortage on the state's public agenda.

The challenge now is to connect the coverage. To do what so many want, Replace Rush on the high court ASAP. If the IGA needs to, reduce the retirement age to 70 or 69. Most Americans, most Hoosiers retire at 65. Rush, "the oldest in the statehouse," never should have sought a 3rd term. That's her quote, while noting her dilution that she still considers herself one of the newcomers at the statehouse.

Clearly, she has imposter syndrome and needs to seek the help of her bogus Judges and Attorney Assistance Program, which too is a huge failure and lawyers and judges can afford to seek help with her (us) paying for it, and covering it up!

Television journalists who have investigated the shortage could ask whether attorneys leaving Indiana cite regulatory uncertainty, disciplinary procedures, litigation costs or professional dissatisfaction as contributing factors. They could interview lawyers who have surrendered licenses, sought reinstatement, moved their practices or declined to enter the Indiana market.

Such reporting would require independent verification and should include the perspectives of disciplinary officials, practicing attorneys, law schools and people who have filed legitimate grievances. A fair investigation must also recognize that attorney discipline protects clients from genuine professional misconduct.

The Business Press Should Be Asking Why Lawyers Leave

For IBJ, the issue has direct economic implications.

A state that struggles to provide attorneys for rural residents, small businesses, estate planning, criminal defense and family disputes faces more than a professional staffing inconvenience. Legal services are part of the infrastructure that allows commerce, property transactions and civil disputes to function.

Lesley Weidenbener, editor and assistant publisher of IBJ and The Indiana Lawyer, recently wrote about Chief Justice Rush's remarks on the attorney shortage. The column described the importance of legal representation and the Court's efforts to address the problem.

That is a useful contribution to the discussion. But it also points toward a difficult question: Can the judiciary responsible for identifying the shortage be subjected to independent scrutiny concerning its own regulatory policies and their possible consequences?

A business publication could investigate whether Indiana law firms experience unusual recruitment difficulties, whether attorneys perceive the disciplinary system as predictable and fair, and whether the state's licensing and reinstatement practices compare favorably with those of Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky.

It could also examine the costs of prolonged disciplinary proceedings, the financial burden of reinstatement and the consequences for clients when lawyers lose the ability to practice.

These questions should be answered with data, not assumptions.

The Story Beyond Rokita

Hoosier Enquirer has repeatedly questioned the fairness of Indiana's attorney-disciplinary system, including its handling of proceedings involving former Indiana attorney Doug Bernacchi, Andrew Straw and several others, Pat Rocchio, and just too many to list.

In that case, Bernacchi has challenged the voluntariness of admissions used in his disciplinary proceeding and the exclusion of testimony from Mario Sims. A September 3, 2026 sworn affidavit by Sims disputes the assertion that Bernacchi discouraged the Commission from obtaining his testimony. Bernacchi also alleges that his admissions were made under threat of arrest.

Bernacchi was an elected candidate for judge and yet, he was attacked almost assuring John Broden the open bench. Broden had escort CJ Rush to the front of the joint session of both chambers of the Indiana General Assembly where he served as a Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and shared her law school, too: Indiana University. Her commission put its hand on the scales of justice too much and even on elections results. Many today critized Broden as overly political judges, former Democrat Party Chairman of St. Joseph County, and as a lazy judge as well. (HIs children went to an Indiana elite Boarding School BTW, not South Bend Public Schools.)

Those allegations have not been judicially and factually established. The Indiana Supreme Court's 2017 disciplinary opinion in In Re Bernacchi remains an important part of the record, including its findings concerning admissions and procedural waiver. It is a fraud and HE has called for the court to Sua Sponte address it, after he filed a Motion to Intervene in Rokita's Second Disciplinary case.

Nevertheless, the existence now obtained by HE reporter Gregg Smith and published last week of a specific sworn contradiction presents a legitimate subject for documentary investigation. Journalists could examine the deposition transcript, hearing records, proposed disciplinary agreements and Sims affidavit, then seek responses from the Commission and other participants.

The larger question is whether attorneys who lack political influence or substantial financial resources have meaningful remedies when they contend that disciplinary procedures have been unfair.

Rokita has the resources and public platform to bring a federal constitutional challenge. Other lawyers may not. That distinction deserves attention.

Chief Justice Rush and the Question of Institutional Accountability

Chief Justice Loretta Rush has led the Indiana Supreme Court since 2014. During her tenure, the Court has overseen the attorney-disciplinary system and launched initiatives addressing the state's shortage of legal professionals.

Rush has publicly acknowledged the shortage, supported proposals to improve access to legal services and emphasized the importance of attorneys to constitutional rights.

Those efforts are part of her record and deserve to be reported.

So, too, should questions about the independence, transparency and accountability of the regulatory system under the Court's authority.

HE has criticized Rush's leadership and questioned whether Indiana's disciplinary system provides adequate safeguards against selective or disproportionate enforcement. Critics may reasonably demand independent oversight, clearer investigative standards, transparent sanction data and meaningful opportunities to challenge disputed findings.

But allegations that Commission personnel are personally loyal to Rush, or that she directed retaliation against particular lawyers, require evidence of specific conduct. Institutional oversight alone does not establish personal wrongdoing.

A serious investigation should test those allegations rather than assume them.

A State With Too Few Lawyers Cannot Afford to Ignore the Problem

Indiana's attorney shortage is documented. Its disciplinary system is now the subject of a federal lawsuit brought by the state's attorney general. Its Supreme Court has acknowledged that too many Hoosiers struggle to obtain legal representation.

What has not been demonstrated is whether those problems are causally connected.

That is precisely why the question deserves investigation.

The Indianapolis Star, The Indiana Lawyer, Indiana Capital Chronicle, The Indiana Citizen and IBJ have already reported important parts of the story. WRTV has conducted meaningful investigative reporting on the attorney shortage. Other major television and regional newsrooms have an opportunity to contribute.

But reporting each controversy separately risks missing a larger institutional question: Is Indiana doing everything reasonably necessary to protect both the public and the constitutional rights of the lawyers who serve it?

The state needs reliable information about how many attorneys leave, why they leave, whether disciplinary procedures are perceived as fair, and whether the rules governing professional practice make Indiana more or less attractive to qualified lawyers.

It needs transparent statistics concerning grievances dismissed without charges, average investigation times, disciplinary sanctions, reinstatement proceedings and the costs imposed upon respondents.

And it needs independent scrutiny of whether the disciplinary system affords meaningful procedural protections to lawyers regardless of their political prominence.

The question for Indiana's news organizations is no longer simply whether Todd Rokita has a valid federal lawsuit. It is whether the institutions governing the legal profession deserve the same searching examination that journalists routinely apply to the politicians, corporations and public agencies they cover.

Hoosier Enquirer believes that investigation and action are long overdue. Rush must go!

Indiana's citizens, law students, and lawyers deserve nothing less. Report the truth and stop covering it up!

Hoosier Enquirer

Breaking News