INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a motion, allowing for the public release of Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s conditional agreement for discipline centering on his recent violations of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
On Thursday, Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Loretta Rush granted the motion, stating that a majority of the court voted to grant the request from the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission to release the agreement. The order stated that Rokita did not object to the public release of this order.
According to previous reports, the commission found that Rokita violated two parts of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct when Rokita publicly commented on his office’s investigation into Dr. Caitlin Bernard, including comments he made in July 2022 on Fox News. Rokita was then publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court.
Bernard is an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim. According to previous reports, Bernard was found to have violated patient privacy laws in May 2023. During an interview on Fox News, Rokita told host Jesse Watters that Bernard is an “abortion activist acting as a doctor – with a history of failing to report.”
After the public reprimand, Rokita publicly denied he violated the two rules, even though the commission said at the time that Rokita signed a conditional agreement where he admitted that he did violate the two rules.
Officials with the commission said at the time that Rokita’s public statements created confusion on whether or not he admitted to doing anything wrong. The commission said Rokita’s statements did not line up with what he agreed to in the conditional agreement and calls Rokita’s “acceptance of responsibility” into question.
In response to this request, Rokita said at the time that he was not aware of a requirement to “indicate contrition with every public statement I make.”
“Nothing I said or signed was false,” Rokita said at the time. “Ultimately, this is about my opponents pressuring the Disciplinary Commission and the courts to do what they can’t do at the ballot box.”
What does the document say?
The Indiana Supreme Court unsealed a document on Thursday, titled a “statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline,” officials said Rokita, as well as the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission “conditionally agreed upon the discipline to be imposed” in the case.
Officials found that Rokita’s use of the phrase “abortion activist acting as a doctor – with a history of failing to report” in relation to Dr. Bernard “could reasonably be considered a statement about the doctor’s character, credibility or reputation in violation of Rule 3.6(a).”
Rokita’s use of the phrase also violated Rule 4.4(a) because “a reasonable person could conclude (the phrase) had ‘no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden’ the doctor.”
The commission had originally brought forward an accusation of a third violation, a violation of Rule 8.4(d) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. According to the rules, 8.4(d) states that it is professional misconduct to “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”
The dismissal of this rule was made “in exchange for (Rokita’s) admission to misconduct” on the other two counts, the documents read.
“(Rokita) has accepted responsibility for his misconduct,” the documents said. “…(Rokita) should receive a public reprimand for violating Indiana Professional Conduct rules 3.6(a) and 4.4(a)… The commission will dismiss count three.”
In an affidavit, signed by Rokita that is included with the “statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline,” Rokita said that he consents to the agreed discipline, “without being subject to any coercion or duress whatsoever.” Rokita also said that he is “fully aware of the implications of submitting (his) consent.”
Rokita’s affidavit also states that he acknowledged that the material facts set out in the document are true.
“I submit my agreement to discipline because I know that if this proceeding were prosecuted, I could not successfully defend myself,” Rokita said in the affidavit.
For a look at the statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline documents, look below:
