Op-ed: Rokita is no victim of a leftist witch hunt

Todd Rokita is the attorney general of Indiana. In 2022, he publicly attacked a doctor who provided abortion services in Indiana to a 10-year-old rape victim who was unable to obtain such services in Ohio, in violation of the statute that requires complaints into a doctor to “be held in strict confidence until the attorney general files notice with the (Medical Licensing Board) of the attorney general’s intent to prosecute the licensee.” Indiana Code § 25-1-7-10(a).

On Sept. 18, 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a disciplinary complaint, Cause No. 23S-DI-00258, against Rokita alleging violations of Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(a), making extrajudicial statements with a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding, and Rule 4.4(a), using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person.

On Nov. 2, the Indiana Supreme Court approved a very generous conditional agreement submitted by the parties to resolve the case with an agreed public reprimand: “In a sworn affidavit attached to the conditional agreement, made under penalty of perjury, Respondent admits these two rule violations and acknowledges that he could not successfully defend himself on these two charges if this matter were tried. Respondent’s acceptance of responsibility is a mitigating factor, as (is) his cooperation with the disciplinary process … .” Opinion at 4-5. (The commission agreed to dismiss a third charge under the CA.) Two justices dissented, “believing the discipline to be too lenient based on the Respondent’s position as Attorney General and the scope and breadth of the admitted misconduct.” Opinion at 4.

On the same date, Rokita posted a fiery response on the AG’s website defending his actions and denying misconduct, in direct contradiction to his sworn affidavit. Rokita complained that he “was required to sign an affidavit without any modifications,” disingenuously ignoring that the content of the required affidavit supporting any CA is dictated by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23 Section 12.1(b)(3).

I filed a grievance against Rokita asserting, among other things, that he lied in his sworn affidavit, intending to immediately contradict it, and knowing that the court would rely on it in approving the CA. The commission has ordered Rokita to respond to this grievance and to a grievance submitted by another attorney.

So who does Rokita blame for his woes? The day the commission filed the disciplinary complaint, he responded on the AG’s official website by saying he is fighting:

• “(R)adicals (who) have fostered an environment that ‘cancels’ non-compliant citizens through intimidation as well as tactics that can weaponize our respected institutions.”

• “(T)he culture of death, grievance and transanity being pushed by radicals in workplaces, schools, media and government.”

According to his Nov. 2 response to the court’s opinion approving the CA, again on the AG’s official website, his perceived enemies include:

• The media, medical establishment and cancel culture.

• Liberal activists would like to cancel your vote.

• The mob that silences parents, employees, conservative students, law enforcement, believers of all faiths, American patriots and free enterprise itself.

• The pro-abortion president and vice president.

• The cancel culture establishment.

In response to the recent grievances against him, a spokesman for Rokita issued a statement to The Indiana Citizen, published on Nov. 29, which included:

• “This one-way street of self-serving accusations made by attorneys with one-sided voting records and giving histories is now being built into a highway of oncoming baseless claims leading into an election year … .”

• An accusation that “liberal activists” are targeting him because “they hate the fact I stand up for liberty.”

• If the issue were “anything other than the politically charged issue of abortion, the Left would not be giving any of this a second self-interested thought … .” (Emphasis added.)

I’m almost flattered that anyone thinks I’m important enough to do “opposition research” on me. However, the identities and backgrounds of those who submitted grievances against Rokita are irrelevant distractions, a figurative cry of, “Squirrel!”

Regardless of who submits a grievance against any attorney, the grievance can go nowhere without action by the commission and the court. Members of the commission are appointed by the court. See A&D Rule 23 sec. 6(b). The commission’s executive director is selected by the commission with the approval of the court. See A&D Rule 23, sec. 8(a)(1). The justices on the court are appointed by the governor from candidates selected by the Judicial Nominating Commission. See I.C. 33-27-3-1. The JNC consists of three attorneys elected by the bar and three nonattorneys appointed by the governor. See I.C. 33-27-2-1, et seq. The chief justice or his/her designee serves as the chairman of the JNC. All the current justices on the court were appointed by Republican governors. Rokita’s perceived radical leftist persecutors play literally no role in the disciplinary proceedings against him after a grievance is submitted.

I worked as a staff attorney in the Indiana Supreme Court’s administration office for 18 years. I was privileged to work with justices appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors. In all those years, I never witnessed any justice make any decision for political reasons or for partisan gain. Retired Justice Steven David used to say that he was not an “R,” not a “D” and not an “I”; rather, he was a “J.” In other words, the job of a justice is judicial, not political. I was profoundly impressed by all the justices’ professionalism, impartiality and commitment to the rule of law.

Having also worked as a staff attorney at the Disciplinary Commission for two years, I can say the same of the members of the commission, its director and its staff. Although there has been turnover at the court and the commission since I retired in late 2016, I have no reason to doubt that the current court and commission are just as dedicated to discharging their duties fairly and without regard to politics.

The disciplinary process is no leftist partisan witch hunt. I have every confidence that the current disciplinary matter concerning Rokita is in good hands and will conclude with a just result.•

__________

Paula Cardoza-Jones, Speedway, retired Indiana Supreme Court staff attorney