Charges filed against Attorney General Todd Rokita

INDIANAPOLIS – Today, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed charges against Attorney General Rokita.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed three charges against Rokita, all related to breaches of confidentiality. It’s up to high court justices to determine whether any misconduct occurred and what, if any, sanction is warranted.

Todd Rokita

The charges are allegations.

One of the allegations outlined in the disciplinary complaint states that Rokita improperly disclosed on national television last summer that his office was investigating Indianapolis OB-GYN Dr. Caitlin Bernard. Doing so could be deemed a violation of Indiana’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits such a disclosure if the investigation is still pending.

At the time of Rokita’s statements, the Bernard investigation was still pending, and a formal complaint against the doctor had not yet been filed with the Indiana Medical Licensing Board.

The complaint additionally alleges that by publicly referring to Bernard as an “abortion activist acting as a doctor — with a history of failing to report,” Rokita broke a professional rule that bars attorneys from using means “that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person.”

A third count contends that — because Rokita disclosed his office’s investigation into Bernard before making a referral to the Medical Licensing Board — he broke another professional rule that describes any lawyer’s actions that are “prejudicial to the administration of justice” as misconduct.

The Attorney General has an opportunity to respond. The charges are filed with the Appellate Clerk and the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) is available on by using case number 23S-DI-00258.

The following is procedural information:

The Disciplinary Commission investigates and prosecutes allegations of attorneys accused of violating the professional rules of conduct. You can review the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.

Here is information about how a case makes its way through the process (and what is confidential and what is public).

  • When a complaint (or allegation/accusation) is submitted to the DC that complaint is not public
  • The DC can dismiss a complaint as having no validity
  • The DC can also begin an investigation
  • If an investigation is underway that investigation remains confidential
  • An investigation can result in a private (non-public) reprimand or caution
  • An investigation can result in public disciplinary charges being filed; these are allegations in a formal and public charging document (as in the attached)
  • An attorney facing misconduct charges has the opportunity to respond to the charges
  • A trial-like proceeding can be conducted with the DC alleging misconduct and an attorney denying the allegations


  • Both sides (the DC and the attorney facing allegations of misconduct) can agree misconduct has occurred and a filing can be submitted to the Supreme Court with that agreement (the agreement is not public); the Supreme Court reviews it and can accept or deny it

The Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately determine what (if any) misconduct has occurred and what (if any) sanction is warranted.