The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Friday in a second attorney discipline case against Indiana Attorney General Theodore Rokita, stemming from public comments he made about his office's investigation of Dr. Caitlin Bernard three years ago. Dr. Bernard performed an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, generating national attention and controversy.
The court exercised its original jurisdiction over the attorney discipline matter in *In the Matter of Theodore E. Rokita*, decided July 18, 2025. Justice Molter authored the opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justice Massa concurring. Justices Slaughter and Goff each filed separate concurring opinions.
This second complaint by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission follows an earlier disciplinary action that resulted in a public reprimand for Rokita. In the first case, the Commission alleged Rokita's public comments violated three professional conduct rules: making statements likely to prejudice legal proceedings, making statements that embarrass or burden another person without legitimate litigation purpose, and failing to comply with confidentiality statutes governing investigations of regulated professions.
The first complaint was resolved through a joint agreement between the parties. The Commission agreed to drop its confidentiality charge in exchange for Rokita accepting responsibility for violating the other two rules. Both parties agreed that a public reprimand would be the appropriate sanction. The Indiana Supreme Court accepted this agreement in a closely divided majority vote and issued the public reprimand as proposed.
However, the resolution of the first case led to the second complaint. After the court accepted the agreement and issued the reprimand, Rokita issued a press release and made additional public statements about both the agreement and the reprimand itself. These subsequent statements prompted the Disciplinary Commission to file the second complaint now before the court.
The case centers on professional conduct rules that govern how attorneys, including elected officials who are licensed to practice law, may speak publicly about ongoing investigations and legal proceedings. The rules are designed to protect the integrity of the legal process and prevent statements that could prejudice proceedings or unfairly burden individuals under investigation.
Rokita's investigation of Dr. Bernard became a focal point of national debate over abortion access following the Supreme Court's decision in *Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization* in 2022. The case of the 10-year-old Ohio rape victim who traveled to Indiana for an abortion drew intense media scrutiny and political commentary from officials across the country.
The disciplinary proceedings highlight the tension between attorneys' professional obligations and the public communication responsibilities of elected officials. Attorney generals and other elected lawyers must navigate professional conduct rules while fulfilling their duties to inform the public about their official actions and policies.
The Indiana Constitution grants the state's Supreme Court original jurisdiction over attorney discipline matters, meaning such cases come directly to the high court rather than proceeding through lower courts first. This constitutional provision ensures that attorney discipline cases, particularly those involving high-profile attorneys or elected officials, receive prompt attention from the state's highest judicial authority.
The fact that multiple justices filed separate concurring opinions suggests some complexity or disagreement about aspects of the case, even while reaching the same ultimate conclusion. Separate opinions often address different reasoning for the decision or emphasize particular legal principles the concurring justices believe are important.
Attorney discipline cases involving elected officials can have broader implications for how public lawyers conduct themselves in high-profile matters. The rules governing attorney conduct apply equally to all licensed attorneys, regardless of their elected positions or public prominence.
The Commission's decision to file a second complaint based on Rokita's statements about the first disciplinary proceeding underscores the principle that attorney conduct rules continue to apply even when attorneys are discussing their own disciplinary matters. Public statements about disciplinary proceedings themselves can potentially violate professional conduct rules if they go beyond appropriate bounds.
This case adds to the body of precedent governing how elected attorneys must balance their professional obligations with their public duties. The resolution may influence how other attorney generals and elected lawyers approach public communications about sensitive investigations and legal matters.
The disciplinary action comes at a time when attorney generals nationwide have taken increasingly visible roles in high-profile legal and political matters, making the boundaries of appropriate public communication particularly relevant for state chief legal officers.
The court's handling of this second complaint will likely provide additional guidance on the scope of attorney conduct rules and the consequences for violations, particularly in cases involving public officials who must communicate regularly with constituents and media about their official duties.