Rokita Reprimanded

The Indiana Supreme Court has reprimanded the state Attorney General for statements made about a doctor

Respondent Theodore Rokita is, and at relevant times was, the Attorney General of Indiana. On July 13, 2022, Respondent appeared on a national television program to discuss an Indiana physician who had performed an abortion on a ten-year-old rape victim from Ohio. During that appearance Respondent described the physician as an “abortion activist acting as a doctor—with a history of failing to report.”

Respondent admits, and we find, that he engaged in attorney misconduct by making this statement. This matter is before us on a disciplinary complaint the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed and a conditional agreement the parties submitted to this Court pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 23(12.1)(b). Respondent’s 1995 admission to this state’s bar subjects him to this Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. We approve the parties’ conditional agreement and their proposed discipline of a public reprimand.

He admitted the statement violated Rules 3.6(a) and 4.4(a)

After the program’s host stated that “from what we can find out so far, this Indiana abortion doctor has covered this up” and the doctor “has a history of failing to report child abuse cases,” Respondent said:

[T]hanks for having me on. But, I shouldn’t be here, right.
* * *
Then we have the rape. And then we have this, uh, abortion activist acting as a doctor—with a history of failing to report. So, we’re gathering the information. We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end, uh, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. In Indiana, it’s a crime, uh, for, uh, to not report—uh, to intentionally not report.

Sanction

The Court concludes that Respondent violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 4.4(a) by making an extrajudicial statement that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and had no substantial purpose other than to embarrass or burden the physician. For Respondent’s professional misconduct, he is hereby publicly reprimanded.

Not unanimous

All Justices concur, except Rush, C.J., and Goff, J., who would reject the conditional agreement, 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.

(Mike Frisch)