Recent Indiana Ethics Reforms May Be Too Little Too Late to save Rush

Professional licensing is state priority for a change under Gov. Braun

INDIANAPOLIS — August 28, 2026 — Indiana’s attorney disciplinary machinery continues grinding through cases in 2026, issuing orders that can determine whether lawyers keep the careers they spent decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars building.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s public docket shows disciplinary orders throughout the year, including another on August 20, while more than two dozen formal cases filed during 2026 remain listed as pending.

But the systemic problems with that system aren’t being hidden to Individual attorneys or unknown to Gov. Mike Braun.

The official explanation is not credible anymore in the wake of all CJ Rush’s errors and failed oversight of her selected Commision staff and former leadership. HE has exposed a lot of lawfare, questionable ethics enforcement actions, and how loyalty is rewarded and power has been abused

In theory, the SCOIN and INBAR says its disciplinary system exists to protect the public from lawyer misconduct while also protecting attorneys from unwarranted accusations.

But it has become a problem by serving some as a protection racket and punishing the outspoken and many on flimsy facts and making them victims of horrible show trials, proving government regulators are less fee than market forces. Now Indiana has created a shortage of competent lawyers and law students.

Swearing in interns isn’t part of the state’s constitution. Quite simply Rush needs to go. She was never competent for the high court and Daniels who appointed her admitted he only chose unqualified judges to weaken the 3rd branch of government as a desired position.

But there is another side to this system that deserves considerably more attention.

For lawyers who contend they were professionally destroyed by questionable accusations, inadequate investigations, lack due process in prosecution, he said she said credibility contests, race even, and a disciplinary structure dominated from beginning to end by institutions operating under the Indiana Supreme Court, a debate about reform in 2026 may arrive painfully late.

A lawyer can theoretically win eventually and still lose practically everything along the way: clients, employees, reputation, income, health, professional relationships and sometimes the desire to practice law at all. Many lawyers refused to respond after seeing that the process wasn’t right.

That is why Indiana should no longer ask merely whether its disciplinary system catches unethical lawyers or disciplinary cases based on subjective matters like personality or misspellings or based on politically elected judge complaints or biases. The system is a fraud, that is to say, it was been operated by the most incompetent way by lawyers who proscribed lawyers far more qualified than themselves, “The most unethical lawyers prosecuted ethics cases for over 2 decades.”

The state needs to ask whether the disciplinary system itself provides enough independent oversight and due process to justify the enormous power it exercises over people’s lives.

Is the Constitution even constitutional giving unchecked “exclusive” authority to Rush? No she has shown that us that. She failed and hurt innocent lawyers while allowing the public to suffer.

Her calling any lawyer “incompetent” in a DI order is more than ironic it is outright outrageous and contradicting justice!

One Client Can Start the Machinery

Indiana makes filing an attorney grievance relatively straightforward. A complainant submits a Request for Investigation to the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. The Commission determines whether the allegations raise a substantial question of misconduct and, if they do, requires the lawyer to respond.

From there, the Commission investigates. The lack of criminal law and procedural protections are glaring.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about their investigation and it objectively clear the rules suck. So much so who in there right mind would or should want to be a lawyer in Indiana? That is the catch-22.

Fee dispute are common and getting worse as there are no lawyers but these cases need to be reopened. Clients need somewhere to report genuine misconduct, and dishonest lawyers can cause devastating damage. But the scales of justice have fallen of the bench by allowing a single client to destroy a career, period. And there is no reversing it or real review.

The danger appears at the other end of the spectrum: the case involving a disgruntled former client, a misunderstanding, conflicting recollections or a classic “he said, she said” dispute in which objective evidence is sparse.

Indiana’s own website recognizes that lawyers make mistakes and that a single mistake or error in judgment generally should not become a disciplinary matter. Yet once an investigation proceeds, the stakes for the lawyer become enormous.

And much of this occurs confidentially.

The public cannot watch investigators investigate. It cannot routinely examine cases the Commission rejected or compare those investigations with cases it pursued. It cannot readily determine whether investigators sought exculpatory evidence as aggressively as inculpatory evidence, whether similarly situated attorneys received similar treatment, or whether professional connections affected discretionary decisions.

Confidentiality protects lawyers against publicity from frivolous complaints. That is important.

Alsi, secrecy also protects the disciplinary institution from scrutiny. Transparency isn’t even available in the public access my case website? Why not? It seems suspicious that only the prosecution filing are readable or linked and response aren’t. This was a wrong and Rush knows it and needs to go for engaging in her own selfish self power.

Those two realities can exist simultaneously.

The Investigator Can Become the Prosecutor

There is another structural concern that deserves considerably more attention.

The Office of Judicial & Attorney Regulation states that, at the direction of the commissions it supports, the office investigates and prosecutes allegations of attorney and judicial misconduct.

Those are extraordinary responsibilities to place within one institutional structure.

The Disciplinary Commission itself is appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court. It currently consists of seven lawyers and two nonlawyers and employs the staff responsible for investigating and prosecuting attorney cases.

If formal charges follow, the Supreme Court appoints the hearing officer.

The hearing officer conducts proceedings resembling a trial but cannot finally decide the lawyer’s fate.

That authority belongs to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Thus, from the perspective of a lawyer facing discipline, virtually every road eventually leads to the same institution: the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Court appoints the Commission members. Its disciplinary apparatus investigates and prosecutes cases. The Court appoints the hearing officer once formal charges are filed. And the five justices ultimately determine discipline.

That may comply perfectly with Indiana’s existing constitutional and disciplinary rules.

The more important ethics-reform question is whether it remains the best system.

When a “Deal” Requires an Admission Under Oath

'Particular scrutiny should be directed toward Indiana’s use of conditional disciplinary agreements.

The state’s own instructions describe a conditional agreement as a joint statement between the respondent lawyer and Disciplinary Commission establishing agreed facts, established charges and proposed discipline. It must be accompanied by an affidavit from the respondent satisfying requirements contained in Admission and Discipline Rule 23.

In other words, this isn’t comparable to someone paying a traffic ticket simply to make a nuisance disappear. The attorney is making consequential sworn admissions.

That creates an enormous imbalance when the alternative may be prolonged litigation against the disciplinary authority and the possibility of a considerably more serious professional sanction.

The existence of such agreements does not prove coercion, fabrication or misconduct by Commission attorneys. Nor should every lawyer who accepts discipline later be permitted simply to disavow sworn admissions.

But Indiana should confront the practical reality of the bargaining table.

Imagine spending 20 or 30 years building a law practice. Employees depend upon you. Clients depend upon you. Your mortgage, retirement and family’s financial security depend upon your license.

Across the table is the governmental institution capable of seeking its suspension.

“Voluntary” requires careful definition under those circumstances.

Indiana should therefore examine whether lawyers entering conditional disciplinary agreements receive protections comparable to those society demands when defendants surrender fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. The record should establish unmistakably that the lawyer understands every admission, consequence and alternative and that no undisclosed representation induced the agreement.

And if the Supreme Court rejects a negotiated disciplinary resolution, Indiana should guarantee a meaningful opportunity to reconsider admissions or positions made specifically in reliance upon that rejected bargain.

The disciplinary system should never become a procedural trap.

Serious Historical Allegations Deserve Investigation — Not Assumption

Former respondents have made more serious accusations about historical disciplinary practices, including claims involving former Commission personnel, last-minute disciplinary filings, inadequate investigation, sworn admissions obtained during settlement negotiations and representations allegedly made about what would happen if proposed discipline were rejected.

Those accusations should not simply be published as proven facts.

They should be investigated.

If documentary evidence establishes that any Commission lawyer — including former Commission attorney Aaron Hogg, whose conduct has been specifically questioned by critics — knowingly misrepresented the consequences of a disciplinary agreement, manufactured evidence, induced false sworn testimony or threatened an attorney improperly, that would represent an extraordinary abuse of governmental power.

But the same standard demanded for accused attorneys must apply here: allegation is not proof.

That principle actually strengthens the case for reform.

Indiana should permit an independent examination of disputed historical disciplinary cases instead of expecting the public to choose between the Commission’s institutional credibility and the accounts of lawyers who say the system destroyed them.

Open the files to an independent reviewer, subject to appropriate protections for former clients.

Examine correspondence.

Examine investigative notes.

Examine the chronology.

Take real depositions and let the respondent attend instead of threatening

respondents with criminal prosecutions for intimidating witnesses just for attending deposititions of lying witness seeking to extort them in many cases.

Compare allegations with evidence actually gathered.

Determine how long investigators waited before acting.

Examine settlement communications and affidavits.

Determine precisely what lawyers were told before signing them.

Then publish the findings or proposed findings for rebuttal.

Institute "Doug's Law"* to require pre-complaint mediation of all client disputes as a statutory contract term to shift costs to the dramamaker(s).

*See https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/former-indiana-attorney-blows-the-whistle-on-corruption-at-the-indiana-supreme-court

If the Commission acted properly, an independent review will vindicate many and expose real issues. If it didn’t, Indiana has a considerably larger problem. What seems to be real is that once they spend recourses they will prosecute to order fees and costs on those they investigate, guitly or not. That is the real story. They are cheap and can't afford to do the job properly. Rush knows that and for it she should resign immediately. Braun needs to file Writs of Mandamus to demand action in many cases wrongfully decided and where court abuse was present.

What Happens When the Supreme Court Rejects the Deal?

]\This is an especially important procedural issue.

Indiana’s current explanation of the disciplinary process says that when the Commission and attorney agree upon facts and an appropriate sanction, they can submit that agreement to the Supreme Court. If the Court accepts it, the sanction is imposed.

If the Court rejects it, there is a hearing.

That sounds straightforward.

But it raises a profound due-process question concerning what becomes of admissions made as part of the rejected agreement and what procedural protections surround the transition from negotiated resolution back into contested litigation.

A lawyer should not have to guess.

Indiana’s rules should make unmistakably clear what can and cannot subsequently be used against a respondent, what representations disciplinary counsel may make concerning likely outcomes, and what happens to sworn admissions made solely to accomplish a negotiated resolution that the Supreme Court ultimately refuses to accept.

These shouldn’t be unwritten customs understood primarily by disciplinary insiders.

A person’s livelihood may depend upon them.

Losing a Law License Isn’t Losing a Job

The consequences also need to be described accurately. Suspending a lawyer isn’t equivalent to firing an employee.

An experienced lawyer may have spent seven years in higher education before beginning practice. Add decades developing clients, referrals, reputation and specialized knowledge, and the economic value of the practice can be enormous.

A serious disciplinary sanction can vaporize it.

Clients leave. Referral relationships disappear. Employees find other jobs. Office leases remain payable. Professional liability problems may follow. A reinstated lawyer cannot necessarily reconstruct relationships accumulated over 25 years.

A later declaration that procedures could have been better doesn’t rebuild that practice.

And permanent or indefinite suspension reaches beyond the individual attorney. Families watch what happens.

Indiana should want talented young Hoosiers to attend Indiana law schools and build careers here. If experienced attorneys conclude that the state’s regulatory environment subjects their livelihoods to an opaque process with insufficient independent review, some will advise their children to practice elsewhere — or avoid the profession altogether.

Whether that phenomenon is widespread should itself be studied rather than assumed. The Indiana State Bar Association, Indiana law schools and Supreme Court could survey former practitioners and determine how many have left Indiana, retired prematurely or discouraged family members from entering the profession because of disciplinary-system concerns.

If the answer is negligible, publish it. If it isn’t, Indiana policymakers need to know.

And Who Disciplines the Disciplinarians? The Governor? The Indiana General Assemply? NO JUSt THEMSELVES. SEE https://www.hoosierenquirer.com/post/indiana-s-supreme-court-has-a-power-problem-and-someone-needs-to-say-no

The asymmetry becomes difficult to ignore.

A private attorney can face a career-ending proceeding over professional misconduct. But what happens if the alleged misconduct occurs inside the disciplinary system itself?

Who independently investigates the investigator?

Who reviews prosecutorial decisions?

Who determines whether exculpatory evidence received adequate consideration?

Who examines allegations that investigators misrepresented facts?

Who investigates claims that a disciplinary lawyer abused the enormous leverage inherent in the process?

The answer cannot simply be another component of the same institutional structure.

Government ethics requires more than good people. It requires architecture designed for the possibility that good institutions occasionally get things terribly wrong.

Restoration Must Be Part of Reform

Indiana should consequently consider something more ambitious than prospective rule changes.

It should establish an Independent Attorney Discipline Review Commission outside the existing disciplinary apparatus to examine credible claims of serious historical injustice.

Former lawyers should not automatically receive their licenses back merely because they claim they were treated unfairly. Neither should decades-old disciplinary findings be presumed infallible simply because the Supreme Court entered an order.

The burden should be substantial but achievable.

Where an independent review finds material investigative misconduct, undisclosed exculpatory evidence, knowingly false representations by disciplinary personnel, serious procedural irregularities or unreliable admissions that materially affected the outcome, the former lawyer should have an expedited path to relief.

And where the evidence establishes a miscarriage of justice, Indiana should do more than quietly restore a license.

It should restore the lawyer’s good name.

That could include vacating an erroneous disciplinary judgment, publicly explaining what went wrong and correcting official records so an Internet search doesn’t continue punishing someone for governmental mistakes long after the government acknowledges them.

Reform Cannot Wait Until Everyone Involved Is Gone

Indiana’s Supreme Court amended its Admission and Discipline Rules twice this summer. The disciplinary docket remains active. New formal complaints continue appearing. The machinery continues operating.

So this isn’t ancient history. IT IS CURRENT AND RUSH NEEDS RESPOND OR BE INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI AND DOJ.

Prospective reform should include independent review of prosecutorial misconduct allegations, stronger protection of settlement communications, clearer procedures following rejection of conditional agreements, publication of anonymized statistics concerning investigations and dismissals, greater nonlawyer participation, meaningful appellate safeguards and an independent mechanism for reviewing old cases presenting credible evidence of injustice.

None of that requires Indiana to become soft on unethical lawyers.

Quite the opposite.

Stealing client money should bring severe consequences. Lying to courts should bring consequences. Abandoning clients should bring consequences. Serious conflicts of interest and deliberate dishonesty cannot be tolerated in a profession entrusted with people’s freedom, property and families.

But there is another principle equally important to the legitimacy of American law:

The government must obey the standards it imposes upon everyone else.

Indiana’s disciplinary authorities demand honesty from lawyers. They should operate under procedures capable of demonstrating their own honesty.

They demand candor toward tribunals. Their dealings with respondent attorneys should withstand the same scrutiny.

They demand that lawyers avoid conflicts and protect due process. Their own institutional structure should satisfy those standards as well.

And when government gets something wrong, preserving institutional reputation cannot become more important than correcting the injustice.

Indiana has spent decades deciding which lawyers deserve punishment, AND IT MUST BE FAIR. IT ISN'T. JUST GOOGLE IT!

In 2026, perhaps it is finally time to examine whether some of those lawyers deserved justice instead.

.