.png)
This June AG Rokita Finally Spoke Up
- Gregg Smith
- 3 hours ago
- 5 min read
When the Attorney General Warns the Court: What Todd Rokita’s Undated Letter Says About Indiana’s Attorney Discipline System—and What It Doesn’t
Read this bizarre hand delivered, undated letter likely written with fear of retaliation, or maybe just to halt further DI cases against him after using state resources to prosecute his personal small claims case for a jet ski embarrassment?
Sometimes the most revealing document is not a court opinion or a disciplinary complaint.
Sometimes it is an undated, hand-delivered long rambling letter, seemingly buried by local media or ignored by the powerful Governor or others.
Truth again stranger than fiction in Indiana’ failed legal system: Yes it seems true that undated, reportedly hand-delivered letter from Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita to the Indiana Supreme Court and then-Chief Administrative Officer Justin Forkner has quietly become one of the most important documents in the ongoing debate over attorney discipline in Indiana.
Source: the indiana citizen
And
Published by The Indiana Citizen during the rulemaking process, the letter is notable not only for what it says, but for who wrote it. It is unusual for a sitting Attorney General—the state’s chief legal officer—to urge the state’s highest court to overhaul the very system responsible for disciplining lawyers.
Is this in response to so many Members of the Assembly calling for Rush to resign?
Is this in response to the HE coverage or the lawyer shortage in the state, or the loss of confidence under CJ Rush and the current state Supreme Court (SCOIN)?
That fact alone should have prompted serious public discussion. And show once again that JE broke this important news story.
Instead, the conversation has largely faded it seems in the halls of power. Those with the power make the rules or bury the evidence of their failure.
A Rare Public Challenge
Attorney General Rokita’s letter argues that Indiana’s disciplinary system needs significant reform. Among other things, he called for:
greater protection for attorneys’ political speech;
stronger recusal standards for disciplinary decision-makers;
increased transparency;
better safeguards for confidentiality;
procedural reforms during investigations; and
limitations on complaints brought without firsthand knowledge.
Those are not minor housekeeping suggestions. They reflect concern that the existing process could be improved to better protect fairness while maintaining public confidence.
Whether one agrees with every proposal or not, the letter raises a fundamental question: if the Attorney General believed reforms were necessary, should the Indiana Supreme Court have treated the concerns as an opportunity for broader institutional self-examination?
The Larger Debate
For years, some Indiana attorneys have argued that the disciplinary system lacks sufficient independent oversight. They contend that the same judicial branch that promulgates the disciplinary rules also oversees the institutions responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and ultimately deciding attorney discipline.
Supporters of the current structure argue that the Indiana Supreme Court has both the constitutional authority and the responsibility to regulate the legal profession and protect the public
Critics respond that authority alone does not eliminate the need for checks and balances. They argue that every governmental institution benefits from meaningful accountability and independent review. Some even call the commission Rush’s SS. She’s a tyrant who needs to be removed from her post as another DEI hire failure.
Whether one accepts that criticism or not, it is a legitimate subject for public debate.
Is There a Chilling Effect?
Another concern voiced by some lawyers is whether the disciplinary process discourages attorneys from openly criticizing judges, court administration, or disciplinary practices.
Some attorneys say they fear that speaking publicly could expose them to professional consequences. Others reject that characterization and maintain that lawyers remain free to criticize the judiciary so long as they comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Because perceptions alone can affect public confidence, this issue deserves careful consideration regardless of where one stands.
Structural Questions
Reform advocates have also suggested examining whether:
hearing officer assignments should be more transparent;
additional opportunities for independent review should exist before formal charges proceed;
more detailed public reporting should be required concerning disciplinary operations;
complainants and respondents should receive additional procedural protections; and
complaints against disciplinary officials themselves should be reviewed outside the existing structure.
These proposals would not eliminate attorney discipline. Rather, proponents argue they would strengthen confidence that discipline is administered fairly, consistently, and impartially.
“Doug’s Law”
Among the more innovative ideas is a proposal known as “Doug’s Law.” A proposal HE learned if endorsed after researching the SCOIN Commission’s bogus investigation of Doug Bernacchi for that former lawyer’s sincere efforts to help and out of state person he never met because of her failure to appear at court hearing or even meet with him but then took his career and license—no wonder no one wants to practice law in Indiana. His case was not unique. Many lawyers here were targeted and victims of court abuse, rigged justice and actual lawfare.
Maybe even Rokita. Most lawyers are afraid to talk or speak up for fear of retaliation, INBAR and the IU law schools which keep dropping in national ranks are part of the problem as well.
Under the proposal, most attorney grievances would first be referred to confidential mediation conducted by an independent neutral before a formal disciplinary complaint could proceed.
Supporters believe this early gatekeeping process could resolve misunderstandings, discourage retaliatory or meritless grievances, reduce costs, and allow disciplinary resources to focus on serious ethical violations. Cases involving immediate threats to clients or the public could proceed directly to formal discipline.
Whether or not such a proposal is ultimately adopted, it reflects a broader desire to make the disciplinary system more transparent, more efficient, and more trusted.
Respect for Institutions Includes the Right to Question Them
Respect for courts does not require silence.
Indeed, public confidence in the judiciary is often strengthened—not weakened—when institutions are willing to examine criticism, consider reforms, and explain why existing procedures remain appropriate or why changes are needed.
Reasonable people can disagree about Attorney General Rokita’s proposals. They can also disagree about the current disciplinary system.
What should not be controversial is the idea that public institutions are accountable to the people they serve and that meaningful discussion about institutional reform should be welcomed rather than dismissed.
If Indiana’s attorney discipline system is as fair and effective as its defenders maintain, careful scrutiny should reinforce that conclusion. If improvements are warranted, acknowledging them would likewise strengthen confidence in the rule of law.
An undated letter from the state’s Attorney General should not be remembered merely as another filing in another controversy. It should be remembered as an invitation to ask whether Indiana’s attorney discipline system is as transparent, accountable, and balanced as it ought to be.
The legal profession—and the public it serves—deserve nothing less. Restoring confidence begins with removing Rush.