Indiana Supreme Court Worsens Attorney Shortage, Deepens Legal Deserts

Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush Must be Fired by Governor Mike Braun

Governments wield immense influence, and when their power is misapplied, the consequences ripple across society. In Indiana, the Supreme Court’s regulatory actions—particularly through its attorney Disciplinary Commission—have worsened an already dire shortage of affordable lawyers, reducing access to justice and warping the legal services market. Mark Levin in his book On Power highlights how this power, when misused, fundamentally undermines free-market dynamics, turning what should be an engine of prosperity into a tool of disruption. He argues governmental power can cause success or pain. Indiana the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Loretta Rush, Hoosiers have experience pain.

A Statewide Legal Desert

According the ABA and Rueters, Indiana ranks among the bottom ten states in attorney availability. Nationally, the average is about 4 attorneys per 1,000 residents; Indiana has only 2.3 per 1,000. Recent figures put the state at 43rd-worst nationwide, with just 2.26 per 1,000.

Over half of Indiana’s 92 counties qualify as “legal deserts”, unable to meet even one lawyer per 1,000 residents—the threshold the ABA considers necessary for functional access to justice.

But go figure. This uneven distribution is stark. Marion County alone has more than 6,000 lawyers—nearly 40% of Indiana’s total attorney population—while entire rural counties may have only a handful of practitioners. That imbalance leaves vast swaths of Hoosiers without meaningful legal representation.

Misuse of Disciplinary Power

Rather than addressing this crisis with practical reforms, critics argue that the Indiana Supreme Court and its Disciplinary Commission have compounded the problem by overwhelmingly targeting lawyers practicing outside the Indianapolis metro.

Patterns of disciplinary actions show a disproportionate focus on small-town and rural attorneys.

Many of these lawyers, already operating with limited resources, become entangled in disciplinary proceedings that often drag on for years, draining their practices and forcing some to close shop entirely. By contrast, the state’s largest firms and urban-based practitioners—concentrated in Marion County—rarely face the same intensity of scrutiny.

The result is a chilling effect. Young lawyers considering careers in underserved areas see not only lower earning potential but also higher risk of professional punishment. Instead of encouraging legal entrepreneurship in legal deserts, the court’s oversight regime has stifled it.

Ripple Effects Across Society

The consequences extend beyond the legal profession. As rural and working-class Hoosiers lose access to lawyers, they lose the ability to enforce contracts, defend against charges, or assert property rights. Businesses in smaller counties face heightened costs in resolving disputes. Families navigating probate, custody, or housing struggles increasingly turn to self-representation—a burden courts themselves admit undermines efficiency and fairness.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush warned that “you have rights, but if you don’t have someone to represent you…what are they worth?” That rhetorical question has become a lived reality for thousands across the state.

A Market Distorted by Judicial Overreach

Unchecked judicial power has created a distorted legal market in Indiana. The combination of low attorney supply, geographic imbalance, and aggressive disciplinary actions outside Indianapolis has driven up costs, eroded trust, and made the profession less attractive to new entrants.

Instead of shrinking deserts, the Court has cultivated them. By pulling attorneys out of circulation in small towns, often wrongly or in demonstration cases intended to scare lawyers into compliance in rural and urban counties. Hence, the Disciplinary Commission has widened the gap in representation and reinforced a two-tiered system: well-connected clients in Indianapolis have options, while the rest of the state struggles to find even basic counsel.

For Hoosiers of modest means, this is no abstract problem. Families facing eviction, workers caught in employment disputes, and small businesses navigating contract conflicts are finding fewer lawyers willing or able to represent them at a reasonable cost.

Every year, the Chief Justice addresses the both houses of the Indiana General Assembly and steers her speach away from the truth and reality into a propaganda and self-congraduating session which serves really no purpose. Those previous address were all online but many have been removed as history and time have proven Rush's comments lies.

Also, the Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Commission publishes a report to justify their high incomes and budgets, which is even worse propaganda and statiscally fraudulent in the opinion of one source. The Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission also publishes orders and opinions, and the Court’s annual report tallies grievances, charges, and dispositions. But the judiciary does not publish a county-level breakdown of disciplined lawyers. Orders typically omit residence/county in the caption.

What Needs to Change (Other than getting rid of Chief Justice Rush, which is a certain need based HE articles).

To reverse this trend, Indiana must, in addtiton to reinstating good lawyers wrongly suspended, move beyond punitive governance and toward systemic solutions:

• Disciplinary transparency: ensure that sanctions are applied fairly across geography, not concentrated outside Indianapolis.

• Rural support programs: expand loan forgiveness, incubators, and startup funds for young lawyers.

• Alternative legal providers: open pathways for allied professionals to fill gaps.

• Pipeline restoration: incentivize law schools and rural clinics to channel graduates to underserved regions.

Without such reforms, Indiana’s legal deserts will only expand—and the promise of equal justice under law will remain more myth than reality.