Transparency Troubles: Hidden Filings in AG Rokita's Discipline Case Spotlight Indiana Supreme Court's Public Access Failures

WHERE IS GOVERNOR BRAUN?

INDIANAPOLIS — In a state where the scales of justice are meant to balance openly (BUT RARELY DO), recent developments in the second disciplinary case against Indiana Attorney General Theodore E. Rokita have exposed glaring cracks in the system's transparency--ABJECT FAVORITISM BY THE SCOIN AND WHERE IS THE GOVERNOR?

Filings that should be accessible to the public via the state's Odyssey Public Access portal, known as MyCase, are mysteriously absent (NO LINK), raising serious questions about the Indiana Supreme Court Clerk's office and its adherence to public records laws. Critics, including a former lawyer fighting his own battle against the system, argue this isn't mere oversight but a symptom of deeper favoritism and abuse within Indiana's attorney discipline process.

The case, In the Matter of Theodore E. Rokita (Case No. 25S-DI-29), stems from a January 2025 complaint by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission accusing Rokita of misleading the court after a prior public reprimand. The AG, re-elected in November 2024, has vehemently disputed the charges, filing a response on August 21, 2025, that continues to deny misconduct and pushes back against what he calls politically motivated attacks. Yet, this answer—along with a motion to intervene filed by former attorney Doug A. Bernacchi on August 15, 2025—remains invisible on MyCase, despite being file-stamped and ostensibly as public document with filetime.Indiana.com and confirmed by HE.

MyCase, managed by the Office of Judicial Administration, serves as the public's window into court proceedings, or does it? It appears they only want the public to know their POV.

Its disclaimer explicitly states that information is provided "as a public service pursuant to order of the Indiana Supreme Court," but warns of potential errors or omissions. However, the platform's failure to display these key documents goes beyond a glitch; it undermines the very principle of open justice, which seems to the hallmark of SCOIN under Chief Justice Loretta Rush.

Users searching by case number may not see matching results due to formatting quirks, as noted in the site's help page, but sources familiar with the filings confirm they were properly submitted via the court's e-filing system.

Bernacchi's motion, obtained by HE, pulls no punches.

Appearing pro se as an intervening party, Bernacchi—a suspended lawyer with a decorated background including degrees from Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Loyola Law School—demands a stay of proceedings or reconsideration of the court's July 18, 2025, order appointing a three-person hearing panel. He labels the panel "novel and unfair," arguing it violates Admission and Discipline Rule 23, which mandates a single, independent hearing officer unaffiliated with the state. The panel, comprising Court of Appeals Judges Cale J. Bradford and Nancy H. Vaidik, along with attorney William G. Hussmann Jr., includes two state-employed judges who will receive additional compensation, potentially breaching Article 2, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution prohibiting dual lucrative offices.

"This is favoritism in action," Bernacchi writes, contrasting his own bizarre 2017 suspension, which began when he ran for judge in St. Joseph County—where he claims due process was denied and perjury ignored. But with Rokita's treatment, well he is not going to subject to a less learned small claims judge who operated a rigged process and hearing, denying all of Bernacchi's witnesses keeping them from testifying, even in rebuttal.

Bernacchi, who spent over $260,000 defending against what he calls a "frivolous" and "childish" complaint, accuses the system of fleecing vulnerable lawyers while shielding powerful ones. Taxpayers foot the bill for Rokita's defense, estimated at nearly $500,000 across his disciplinary matters, while the panel stands to be "handsomely compensated" in what critics call "rigged cases."

The Hoosier Enquirer, an independent outlet scrutinizing Indiana's legal system, has amplified these concerns in a series of exposés. One article revisits Bernacchi's case as a "questionable ethics debacle," highlighting systemic biases where outsiders like him are crushed while insiders thrive. Another blasts the "fleecing" of scared lawyers by ethics defense attorneys and the court, citing retaliations against whistleblowers like Patrick Rocchio and Robert Neary.

In Rokita's case, the outlet demands answers: Why bend rules for the AG but not others? Why hide Bernacchi's motion? And is Chief Justice Loretta Rush, whose tenure is described as "rocky," overseeing a "protection racket" for the elite?

The Supreme Court Clerk's office, responsible for maintaining public dockets, has not responded to requests for comment on the hidden filings. Under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act (IC 5-14-3), court records are presumed public unless sealed, yet the absence here fuels suspicions of selective opacity.

"The public sees a system where good lawyers are fleeced and crushed by a Commission that targets the vulnerable," the Hoosier Enquirer warns. But not Rokita in Rokita.

This isn't isolated. Rokita's saga includes a prior reprimand, a mere slap on the wrist, in November 2023 for comments about Dr. Caitlin Bernard, followed by charges of dishonesty when he backtracked publicly. The court's rare denial of his dismissal motion in July 2025—opting for the three-person panel which is not a process codified in Rule 23 and is unique and special to Rokita— it marks the first such setup in disciplinary history, per critics, inviting perceptions of political influence. Many other news and media outlets are covering this story from the same perspective as HE is here.

As the hearing looms, Bernacchi calls for reform via his proposed "Doug's Law" to "unsuck" legal practice and restore equity.

But with filings shrouded from view, the real question lingers: If the public's watchdog can't see the records, who is justice truly serving?

HE reached out to the Disciplinary Commission and Rokita's office for comment. Rokita's team reiterated his commitment to "fighting for Hoosiers," while declining specifics on the hidden documents.

This story will be updated as more information emerges.