INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission is asking for the Indiana Supreme Court to release Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s conditional agreement for discipline surrounding his recent violations of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
This comes after Rokita publicly denied he violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct surrounding his public comments surrounding his office’s investigation into Dr. Caitlin Bernard, even though he reportedly signed a conditional agreement which he admitted he did so.
According to previous reports, the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Rokita in early November after he spoke about Bernard’s investigation to Fox News host Jesse Watters in July 2022. Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim and was found to have violated patient privacy laws in May 2023.
After Rokita’s office opened an investigation into Bernard in July 2022 after they recieved complaints surrounding the procedure, Rokita appeared on Watters’ show, stating during an interview that Bernard is an “abortion activist acting as a doctor – with a history of failing to report.”
Through this comment, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary commission found that Rokita violated two rules of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6(a) and Rule 4.4(a).
According to previous reports, rule 3.6(a) states that an individual who is a part of the investigation should not make any statement that they know, or reasonably should know, will be disseminated to the public and will have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” future proceedings. Rule 4.4(a) states that a lawyer should “not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such person.”
According to the petition, a document filed on Monday that requested that the conditional agreement be released, the commission stressed that Rokita had admitted to the two violations. However, two hours after the opinion had been released, Rokita released a news release, to which he said he denied he was “not found to have violated anyone’s confidentiality or any laws” and that he was not fined.
“Despite the failed attempt to derail our work,” Rokita said at the time, “… it all boiled down to a truthful 16-word answer I gave a year ago during an international media storm… Having evidence and explanation for everything I said, I could have fought over those 16 words, but ending their campaign now will save a lot of taxpayer money and distraction…. In order to resolve this, I was required to sign an affidavit without any modifications.”
Officials from the commission said after Rokita released his response, many entities requested copies of the conditional agreement and affidavit. Because of court rule, the entities were told they were not available for public inspection.”
In the petition, the commission said that rule nine of the Indiana Access to Court Records act allows for a court to make a court record otherwise excluded from public access accessible under certain conditions. Some of the exceptions include:
- The public interest will be served by allowing access;
- Release of the court record creates no significant risk of substantial harm to any party, third persons or the general public;
- Release of the court record creates no prejudicial effort to ongoing proceedings.
The commission argues that “extraordinary circumstances exist in this case” to release these specific documents. The petition said that Rokita’s public statements have created confusion on whether or not he admitted to doing anything wrong. The commission also claims that Rokita’s public statements do not line up with what he agreed to in the conditional agreement and call into question Rokita’s “acceptance of responsibility.”
“The Commission asserts this action is necessary and in the public interest, considering the contradictory public statements (Rokita) made immediately after this Court issued its opinion imposing discipline,” the petition reads.
Through this petition, the commission is asking the court to order Rokita to respond to the request within 20 days. The commission is also asking the court to schedule a hearing for the commission “to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist and that the public interest is best served by making the Conditional Agreement and (Rokita’s) signed accompanying affidavit publicly accessible and part of the official court record.”
