Recent Hardy Discipline Case Raises Questions About Free Speech, Judicial Power, the Indiana Attorney Discipline System and Chief JusticeRush, specifically

Poor guy, if he said that he needs professional help. Either way he will be an Indiana lawyer again in 6 months.

The Indiana Supreme Court's June 24, 2026 disciplinary decision in In the Matter of Robert James Hardy Jr., Cause No. 24S-DI-438, has reignited longstanding debate over free speech, attorney discipline, and the extraordinary power vested in Indiana's judicial disciplinary system.

Former DeKalb County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Robert James Hardy Jr. was suspended from the practice of law for 180 days after the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that he violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct through a pattern of disparaging and offensive comments allegedly directed at colleagues and various groups of people.

Hardy's life is ruined by ugly words or the court finding he said them; and if he did, the first and 14th amendment allowed it. It seems the court is allowed to do say or do what lawyers are not allowed, right?

The court (Rush in her order) provided no actual proof other than its order saying it so, which is shameful and effectively the same thing he was accused of, but in an official capacity and blasted all over the Internet, ruining him, his family, his reputation, and his service to country.

This must stop, and Rush needs to leave the court in disgrace as a failed, DEI, Chief Justice... the first woman (and a Gutfeld comedian, or a sexist might say, "a short one at that"). There, HE has free speech, even if Indiana lawyers don't, and no matter how obnoxious.

What makes the decision particularly noteworthy is not simply the sanction itself, but the manner in which the opinion was issued. By contrast, the Hardy opinion was specifically authored by Chief Justice Rush herself.

Unlike many attorney discipline decisions issued by the Indiana Supreme Court, the Hardy opinion was not designated per curiam. Instead, the majority opinion was authored solely by Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush.

It is reported, Hardy also made race and nationality-based comments to a Judge, stating “Romani people are gypsies and should all be killed,” Native Americans “should have been wiped from the earth a while ago… because they never learned to invent the wheel,” Black people had gone “downhill from” the time Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. were alive, and Black people “were not doing well in society because they did not speak properly or speak well enough” and would be better off “if they spoke more like White people.”

Note the source, a judge, whicH one? Who? If that was true, then who failed in Hardy's original Character and Fitness Review at the time he was admitted to the Bar? That person needs to be disbarred, too. Which law school admitted him? Indiana Univeristy? Then that law school should be shut down or punished, too.

What Does "" Even Mean?

A per curiam opinion—Latin for "by the court"—is an opinion issued collectively and anonymously on behalf of the entire court rather than being attributed to a specific justice.

In attorney discipline cases, the Indiana Supreme Court frequently utilizes per curiam opinions without a signature, emphasizing that discipline is an institutional decision of the Court as a whole; yet, sometimes it is not by the entire court, or a particular justice recused himself, HE has found.

Broader Debate Over Indiana's Attorney Discipline System Being Discussed by Members of the IGA and the Governor

The Hardy decision is also likely to intensify a broader debate that has simmered within segments of Indiana's legal community for years: whether Indiana's attorney discipline system provides sufficient due process protections for lawyers accused of misconduct.

Critics argue that the system places enormous power in the hands of the Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, while providing relatively limited opportunities for meaningful review by an independent tribunal.

One of the most vocal critics is the Hoosier Enquirer and this journalist.

After reading an advanced electronic copy of former Indiana attorney Doug Bernacchi's America's Kangaroo Courts, the cuase is just. Bernacchi has long maintained that Indiana's disciplinary system is vulnerable to abuse and can be used as a form of weaponized "lawfare" against attorneys who become unpopular or challenge powerful interests.

There are effectively no checks and balances on the centralized authority of SCOIN, which is, HE finds (not part of the above referenced book) made up of political hacks and mostly RINO Republicans.

COMPARING PUNISHMENTS IS TELLING AND CIRCUMSTANCES

HE's prior deep dive into these cases has publicly alleged that many lawyers' own disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally unfair and denied them due process. The entire process, unlike the licensing and regulation of other professionals in the state, on its face violates the Equal Protection Clause and the First and Fourth Amendments and, in practice, the Fifth Amendment, all incorporated in the 14th Amendment to apply to the state.

Among other claims, in In re Bernacch, a proposed disciplinary agreement or plea arrangement was later treated as an admission against him despite his contention that the agreement was never formally accepted by the Indiana Supreme Court and that no trial or hearing was held concerning the proposed resolution. In fact, his hearing officer, also a Black woman like the "client" who allegedly wrote the RFI, was Black.

Bernachi, a 27-year lawyer, who was then flagged for investigation after he sought and ran for judge first in LaPorte and then St. Joseph County, was suspended for one year, not six months. Why is there so much variation in sentencing, innuendo, and irregularities in these orders against the personae non gratae?

Upon being reached forcomment, Bernacchi said by phone, which he answered, "Ms. Brown-Perry was used. She told me she was happy with my representation and told me to withdrawal rather than paying me or anyone, and certainly she didn't pay my paralegal or me, she never showed up to court or any meetings which made it feel like her call to me was a set up." He said that never blamed her or harassed her, but stop short of saying more.

He did not want to engage in a "historic discussion" of the "travesty of justice" he experienced a decade ago here, since he has moved out of state near grandchildren. (He still had his same law office cell number, which to this reporter indicates he had nothing to run from.). Many disciplined lawyers change their names and certainly don't answer their old phones. Some are in jail, because often the Criminal Justice system acts faster than Rush's court.

His case is pending on mycase.in.gov. after a search, and it appears his lawyer even filed a motion for reinstatement in 2019 -- more than six years ago, and shockingly no hearing has been set or held on that motion for reinstatement. That is Indiana-style due process in action, and on the record—none in these rigged DI cases under SCOIN Chief Justice Rush.

Public records reflect that Bernacchi many years ago rightly criticized the disciplinary process and has advocated for substantial reforms, including what he has termed "Doug's Law"—a proposal requiring mandatory pre-complaint mediation before certain disciplinary grievances could proceed. His book offered solutions, not an exposé of his ordeal, but stories of several other lawyers in Indiana and Illinois who were clearly attacked, often for involvement in politics or having passion for the law.

So, rather than reform, the system is designed to scare practitioners into compliance and obedience to the high court supremes. Shut up and put up. Never criticize the emperor, or in this case the justices, with no clothes. Enforcement is so incredibly selective that it begs for review and reform.

Meanwhile, most legal clients who complain see the attorney and judicial grievance commission as a protection racket run by, yes, a woman and known acquaintance of Rush's, who is herself allegedly in violation of the Indiana Constitution by holding two state jobs (See https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/judicial-ethics-chief-selected-to-lead-lawyer-disciplinary-commission). But do you think Attorney General Todd Rokita wants to enforce that prohibition, given his run-ins with these unchecked powerful women and their staffs of sycophants?

Supporters of the existing disciplinary system respond that Indiana's procedures include numerous safeguards, including evidentiary hearings before independent hearing officers, review by the Supreme Court, and opportunities for respondents to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and file objections, even if it does not provide the constitutional protections of the Rules of Criminal or Civil Procedure and operates only under Rule 23, a statute adopted by the jurisdiction but largely drafted by lobbyist lawyers at the American Bar Association, an unelected and unaccountable lot.

Further, Rule 23 has a 10-day deadline to object to your hearing officer, but some say they were notified after 11 or 14 days of the appointment, making objections impossible. The games are numerous here. The record is not even accessible, and requests for information go unresponded to, even when cases like that against former Marion County Prosecutor Brizzi are looked into after his death. Dead lawyers apparently have a new right to privacy in this rigged fiefdom of court abuse and reputation-dismantling chamber of horror.

In past years, many lawyers published about the abuse online, including Paul Ogden, Patrick Rocchio, and Andrew Straw, yet now those internet sites are cleansed or taken down altogether, while decade-old character assassinations—which a Virginia court actually stated had "all the grace of a drive-by shooting" in referring to Indiana's order in In re Straw—continue to appear first under Google searches of former lawyers trying to leave the corruption and court abuse behind.

Another question these cases and reality demand is why anyone would ever go to law school in Indiana or seek to practice there. Former deputy prosecutors beware, and shut the eff up, even if it is factual or involves an inappropriate sexual relationship. HE reviewed one case where a lawyer was suspended for allegedly having sex with his wife, who had been a client for several years. He ran for State Senate... go figure. Where is Curtis Hill? How does Rokita and J Dirk Carnahan have to say? What happened to so many lawyers outside of Indianapolis? And now we have a shortage of lawyers, which Rush herself created and will claim credit for addressing. When is enough enough? When will INBAR and the lawyers in this state revolt? Where are the law school deans? Oh yeah, afraid.

Nevertheless, cases such as Hardy's continue to raise difficult questions about consistency and fairness.

For example, critics ask whether there is sufficient clarity regarding when speech by attorneys becomes sanctionable professional misconduct.

They also question whether disciplinary standards are applied evenly from case to case and whether lawyers are always afforded adequate procedural protections before sanctions are imposed, or have access to due process afforded by the Code of Criminal Procedure. After all, criminals get released someday; disciplined lawyers facing ethics charges have no "out date" other than death. And where are the statistics on attorney suicide?

These concerns become particularly acute when disciplinary cases involve allegations relating to speech rather than more traditional forms of attorney misconduct such as client neglect, misappropriation of funds, dishonesty, or criminal conduct.

The Hardy case may therefore be remembered not only for its specific facts, but also for reigniting discussion about the proper balance between attorney regulation, professional civility, constitutional protections, and due process.

Regardless of one's position, the case serves as another reminder that public confidence in the legal system depends not only upon holding attorneys accountable for misconduct, but also upon ensuring that disciplinary proceedings themselves are perceived as fair, transparent, and even-handed.

Bottom Line

Chief Justice Loretta Rush must go just like Aaron Johnson did from the Hamilton County bench and ballot and someone needs to be prosecuted for the weaponization and utter abuses and failures of this broken system in Indiana.

"This independent investigation covers the judicial administration of Loretta Hogan Rush (frequently searched or referred to by critics as Loretta Rush or Chief Justice Rush)."