Today, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita announced he filed a federal lawsuit alleging lawfare was used to retaliate against his protected speech and to interfere with a state consumer case in which he is a witness, not counsel of record.
News release from Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office:
Attorney General Todd Rokita sues Lake County Prosecutor, members of compromised lawyer commission for weaponizing ethics process against political speech
Indianapolis, Indiana (October 2, 2026) – Attorney General Todd Rokita announced today he filed a federal lawsuit against the Executive Director and members of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission—including former Chair and Lake County Prosecutor Bernie Carter–alleging they used lawfare to retaliate against his protected speech and to interfere with a state consumer case in which he is a witness, not counsel of record. The Commission demanded that he answer an AI-generated grievance that cites no ethics rule and in other cases has allowed confidential files to reach the public.
“The nonstop lawfare from this biased, unelected commission that meets in secret continues to be out of control, which is why I am taking this legal action to stop their unethical behavior, not just against me, but for all members of the bar,” Attorney General Rokita said. “The First Amendment does not disappear because someone holds a law license or is in an elected office. This commission has used the discipline process itself, time and time again, to burden the work Hoosiers elected me to do, and most certainly has had a chilling effect on other elected officials who are attorneys.”
The latest investigation
The State of Indiana is suing a Fulton County subject for alleged consumer-protection and vehicle-merchandising violations. Attorney General Rokita is a victim-witness on one of eleven counts and is not counsel of record. A Fulton County judge denied the subject’s motions to dismiss the State’s case and to disqualify the Attorney General’s office. The court also found no ethical violations by the attorney general.
Losing so far in court, the defendant then filed a grievance against Attorney General Rokita with the Disciplinary Commission. The filing cited no Rule of Professional Conduct. It was in part generated by AI. Even so, on July 29, 2026, the Disciplinary Commission demanded a written response from Attorney General Rokita and warned that failure to respond could mean suspension of his law license, even in the absence of other misconduct. Commission rules require dismissal when a grievance does not raise a substantial question of misconduct.
The complaint alleges this demand interferes with pending State litigation against the defendant and an on-going consumer protection investigation and lawsuit by forcing Attorney General Rokita to answer an AI-generated grievance that cites no ethics rule.
A years-long pattern
Since 2022, the Disciplinary Commission has opened investigations of Attorney General Rokita over public comments, legal briefs, advisory opinions, and news conferences; demanded responses under threat of suspension; used the full amount of time the rules allow even though dismissal by the Commission was suitable months earlier. The complaint states the Commission dismissed the same allegations against other attorneys while continuing them against Attorney General Rokita. A major investigation was opened heading into a statewide election and kept alive through the campaign.
Disciplinary Commission rules require all grievances to be kept confidential until a formal complaint is filed. The complaint alleges the Commission copied grievants on its correspondence and those letters reached reporters. In September 2024, two investigations were extended by the Indiana Supreme Court using the file number only. But grievants matched the numbers given to them and confirmed a confidential investigation to the press two months before Election Day.
Bias on the Disciplinary Commission
The complaint alleges the Disciplinary Commission is not a politically neutral ethics body in these matters. A current member and former chair—an elected Democratic County prosecutor—took part in a years-long investigation of Attorney General Rokita while at the same and overlapping time periods endorsing and raising money for Rokita’s opponent in a statewide race. That opponent then used the disciplinary stories in campaign ads. Most current and former members are Democratic donors.
The few that identify as Republicans can easily be classified as “Rinos” (Republicans in name only). They have donated to anti-Trump causes and candidates, even as the Attorney General’s office is routinely on the same side as the Trump Administration on those legal issues and files briefs when the cases affect Indiana’s interests. One example concerned a commissioner who editorialized in a national publication against the position taken by the state of Indiana to keep President Trump on the ballot, all while investigating the Attorney General. The state and Trump subsequently won their position 9-0 at the United States Supreme Court.
Rule changes were not adopted
On November 8, 2024, Attorney General Rokita submitted proposed rule changes to the Indiana Supreme Court’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The proposals would have required immediate dismissal of political-speech grievances, personal knowledge from grievants, judicial impartiality standards for commissioners, and limits on sharing confidential correspondence with complainants. The purpose was to close the loophole that has allowed political grievances to be run as ethics cases—and to keep future attorneys general from being put through the same process. After nearly two years, the Indiana Supreme Court, which overseas this commission, has not given these proposed rule changes any public consideration.
What the lawsuit asks the court to do
The complaint asks the court to declare the Commission’s conduct unconstitutional, halt a demand that the AI-generated grievance be answered or face possible suspension of his law license, award damages for the public disclosures, and require proposed reforms to the commission be heard and implemented.
It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana and can be read here.
Related Images:
