Todd Rokita's Responds to Disciplinary Commission

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita says the Disciplinary Commission is bowing to "political pressure" in its effort to make his confidential agreement public.

1. Filed: 1/2/2024 9:10 PM
INTHESUPREMECOURT
OF
THESTATEOFINDIANA
INTHEMATTEROF )
THEODOREE.ROKITA ) CAUSENO.23S-DI-258
AttorneyNo.18857-49 )
VERIFIEDRESPONSETOPETITION
REQUESTINGCONDITIONALAGREEMENTFORDISCIPLINE
ANDAFFIDAVITTOBERELEASEDFORPUBLICACCESS
Respondent,theHon.TheodoreE.Rokita(hereafter,"Respondent"or
"AttorneyGeneral",orAttorneyGeneralRokita",bycounsel,herebyrespondstothe
VerifiedPetitionRequestingConditionalAgreementforDisciplineandAffidavitto
beReleaseforPublicAccess(the"Petition")oftheIndianaSupremeCourt
DisciplinaryCommission("Commission")pursuanttoIndianaAccesstoCourt
RecordsRule9(B).
Introduction
Respondentdoesnotobjecttothereliefrequested.Respondentwould
haveagreedtowaiveconfidentiality,buttheCommissionadditionallyrequiredagag
orderontheAttorneyGeneral,prohibitinghimfromtalkingpubliclywith
constituentsabouthisdecisiontowaiveconfidentiality,theConditionalAgreement
andAffidavit,orotherrelatedtopicsoncethedocumentswerereleased.Attorney
GeneralRokitabelievesagagorderissomethinganattorneygeneralcannotagree
tobecauseitisadisservicetothedirectnessandaccountabilityHoosiersdeservefrom
electedofficialsandotherwiseisnotsomethinggovernmentshouldimposeonpeople.
Page1of16

2. IftheCourtweretofindthat"extraordinarycircumstances"exist,thenRespondent
suggestsallDisciplinaryCommissiondeliberationsandmeetingsrelatedtohimbe
openandpublicsothatthepeoplecanbenefitfromobservingtheconductofabody
thatisnotelectedandnevermeetspublicly.
Therearesoundpolicyreasonsfortheconfidentialityofaconditional
agreementandaffidavitunderRule23.Thesepublicpolicyreasonsapplytoall
attorneys,notjusttheattorneygeneral.
TheCommissionhasnotprovenitscaseunderA.C.R.9(B).Neither
AttorneyGeneralRokitanoranylicensedattorneyinIndianashouldbepunishedby
losingtheexpectationofconfidentialityundertheRulesforAdmissiontotheBarand
theDisciplineofAttorneys(hereinafter,the"Rules")forsomethinglikethispolitical
melee,whichisoutsidetheCommission'sexpertise.
o
AttorneyGeneralRokitahasalways(a)cooperatedwiththeCommission,
(b)hasneverdefiedthisCourtoracteddefiantlytowardit,and(c)
immediatelyagreedpubliclythatareasonablepersonmightconcludethat
heviolatedtwoRulesofProfessionalConduct.
o
AttorneyGeneralRokitastatedpubliclyinaconciliatorymannerthat
regardlessofwhetherthisCourtacceptedthesettlement,heaccepted
disciplineandviewedthesituationasanopportunityt0learnandimprove
asanattorney—anattitudehetakeswitheverythinginhisprofessional
andpersonallife.Indoingso,thousandsofdollarsoftaxpayermoneywere
saved.
o
AttorneyGeneralRokitaalwayshasspokenandwrittentruthfullyabout
thedisciplinarymatterandtheunderlyingmatter.Allhisstatementsare
supportedbyevidence.NothingAttorneyGeneralRokitasaidorwrote
contradictsanythingpublishedbytheCourt,agreedt0withthe
Commission,or—affirmedinhisAffidavit.AttorneyGeneralRokitastands
byhisstatementthathewasnotfoundt0haveviolatedanyone's
confidentialityoranystatelaws.
oTheplainlanguageAttorneyGeneralRokitausedinhispublicstatement
Page2of16

3. afterthisCourt'srulingstandsonitsown"Rules"arenotstate"statutes"
and,therefore,not"laws."Respondentisnotresponsibleforcausing
"confusion"wheremediaoutletshaveapre-determinednarrativethat
keepsthemfromnoticingthedifferencebetweenwordslike"Rules,"
"statutes,""laws,""fines,""fees,"and"costs."Hewasnotfinedbythis
Courtoranyotherbody.The$250hewasdirectedtopayforcourtcosts
isnota"fine."
Falsenarrativesthatcaused"confusion"fortheCommissionstemfrom
suggestionsinsomecirclesthatAttorneyGeneralRokitamadefalse
statementsbecauseheadmittedthatareasonablepersonmightfindhe
violatedtheRules.However,agreementwiththeCommissionthata
reasonablepersonmightfindthecontext(time,place,manner)inwhich
somethinghesaidcontravenestwoRulesofProfessionalConductdoesnot
meanthatwhathesaidwasfalse—theexactpointhemadeinhispress
releaseafterthisCourt'sOrder.
AttorneyGeneralRokitadidnotagreetobedisciplinedonathirdCount
thattheCommissionallegedanddismissed.Theallegationsarenottrue
andshouldnothavebeenpled.TheCountdealtwithconfidentiality
requirementsunderstatelaw.Relatedcasesweredismissedvoluntarily.
Indianalawholdsthatwhenaplaintiffvoluntarilydismissesamatterit
isasifitneverexisted.AttorneyGeneralRokitarelieduponitwhen
makinghispublicstatement.
AttorneyGeneralRokitaisnotresponsibleforalleged"confusion"flowing
fromafalsenarrativethatequatesorextendshisadmissionsmadeto
resolveCountsIandIItoCountIII.Thesituationwascomplicatedbythe
Commission'sactiontooverchargeacountithadagreedtodismiss.The
Commission'sactionherecausedtheconfusionaboutwhichitcomplains.
TheCommissionersknewandagreedthatRespondentwouldissuea
publicstatementtoaddresstheallegationsintheCounttheCommission
publiclychargedanddismissed.TheCommissiondidnotobjectbut
insistedonincludingnon-essentialmatterintheVerifiedComplaint.
ItisdisappointingthatanarmoftheSupremeCourtexpendsresources
t0readandcollectarticlesinthepressandmediaoutletstocontinue
litigatingamatterthatisover.TheCommission,liketheOfficeofthe
AttorneyGeneral,hasseriousbusinesstodoforthepeopleofIndiana.
Everyday,lawyersarechargedwithstealingfromclients,inappropriate
sexualconduct,impairedjudgmentandsubstanceabuse,andfraudonthe
court,amongotherthings—conductthatposesseriousriskstopeople.
Page3of16

4. StatementofFacts
OnNovember2,2023,theSupremeCourtissueditsPerCuriam
Opinionapprovingtheparties'conditionalagreement,imposingapublicreprimand,
andorderingthatRespondentpay$250incourtcostsplustheCommission's
investigationcosts.TheCourtwrote,"Inaswornaffidavitattachedtotheconditional
agreement,madeunderpenaltyofperjury,Respondentadmitsthesetworule
Violations[Ind.Prof.Cond.R.3.6(a)and4.4(a)]andacknowledgesthathecouldnot
successfullydefendhimselfonthesetwochargesifthismatterweretried."TheCourt
recognizedRespondent'sacceptanceofresponsibility,hiscooperationwiththe
disciplinaryprocess,andhislackofpriordisciplineoveralengthycareeras
mitigatingfactors.TheCourtacceptedtheConditionalAgreement,imposedapublic
reprimand,andOrderedRespondenttopaycourtandinvestigativecosts.TheCourt
didnotimposeafine.
AftertheCourtissuedtheOpinion,Respondentissuedapressrelease
entitled"AttorneyGeneralToddRokita'sStatementonDisciplinaryCommission
Resolution."Respondentstated,"Firstthingsfirst:Idenyandwasnotfoundtohave
violatedanyone'sconfidentialityoranylaws.Iwasnotfined.AndIwillcontinueas
Indiana'sdulyelectedattorneygeneral."Respondentalsostated,"Despitethefailed
attempttoderailourwork...itallboileddowntoatruthful16-wordanswerIgave
ayearagoduringaninternationalmediastorm...lreceiveda'publicreprimand'for
sayingthat"...wehavethisabortionactivistactingasadoctor
-withahistoryof
failingtoreport."Headded,"HavingevidenceandexplanationforeverythingIsaid,
Icouldhavefoughtoverthose16words,butendingtheircampaignnowwillsavea
Page4of16

5. lotoftaxpayermoneyanddistraction....Inordertoresolvethis,Iwasrequiredto
signanaffidavitWithoutanymodifications."
ResgondentDidNotViolateAnyLaw
Respondent'sstatementthathewas"notfoundtohaveviolated...any
laws"didnotcreateambiguityastowhetherhewasadmittingtoanymisconduct.
RespondentadmittedCountsIandIIinhisAnswer.TheCommissioncharged
RespondentwithviolationofastatuteinCountIIIattheverysametimeitknewthat
itwouldsubsequentlydismissCountIII.
Statutesarelaws.However,theRulesofProfessionalConductarenot
laws,insteadbeing"rulesofreason."lAmongotherthings,CountIIIallegedthat
Respondenthadviolatedastatute,i.e.,alaw.Respondentdidnotviolateanylaw.To
saysoistruthfulevenifsomecommentatorsfinditconfusing.TheCommission
understandsthedifferencebetweenaruleandalaw,whichexplainsatleastone
reasontheCommissionvoluntarilydismissedCountIII.
TheCommissionShouldNotOvercharge
AllegedViolationsAgainstanAttorney
RespondentacknowledgesthatallattorneysinIndianamustcomply
withtheRulesofProfessionalConduct.RespondentaddsthatallIndianaattorneys
arerequiredtocomplywiththeRulestobeadmittedtotheBar.Commonsense
suggeststhatattorneysmustcomplywiththeconfidentialityrulesatRule23
l
Ind.R.Prof'lCond.Scope.Moreover,theIndianaCourtoprpeals
hasexplicitly
statedsoinacivilcaseconcerning
atrialcourtordertosetasideacontract.See,Ozuyener
v.Ozuyener,26N.E.3d1076(Ind.App.2015)("TheRulesof
ProfessionalConductarenotlawandwhetheranattorneybreachedtheRulesisnotdeterminativeoftheenforceability
ofacontractcreatedasa
consequenceofanallegedbreach[oftheRulesofProfessionalConduct].")
Page5of16

6. §22(a)(1-5)whenparticipatinginthedisciplinaryprocess.NeithertheCommission
northegrievantsarefollowingtheRules.
Additionally,theSupremeCourtdeviatedfromitscustomarypractice
byreferringtothecontentoftheConditionalAgreementandAffidavit.Awordsearch
ofCaseTextandLexisusingthecombination"'conditionalagreement'&'successfully
defend'"yieldsonlytwohits:(i)the2016amendmentt0Rule23,and(ii)InreRokita,
219N.E.3d733(Ind.2023).TheSupremeCourtventuredintounfamiliarterritory
outsidetheboundsofRule23§22(a)(5).
TheAffidavit—whichisthesameaffidavitusedt0resolveacaseby
agreement—isfourparagraphslong.Respondent'sAffidavitquotesfromRule23
§
17.1(a)(4).ThelanguageofthisRuleisgeneral.Itdoesnotencompasscountsthat
theCommissionchargedandvoluntarilydismissed.Withoutmodification,the"could
notsuccessfullydefend"languageintheAffidavitcanbetakenoutofcontextbya
readertogiverisetoaninferencethatRespondentcouldnotsuccessfullydefend
againstCountIII.TheCourt'sOpiniondoesnotmakeclearthatthelanguagequoted
fromRule23§17.1(a)(4)isnecessaryfordisciplinet0attach.Thelanguagedoesnot
contemplatedismissalofchargesthatarenotadmitted.
Fortunately,theSupremeCourtspecificallyrelatedtheAffidavitto
CountsIandIIinthePerCuriamOpinion.TheconfusioninRespondent'scase
resultsfromthefactthattheCommissionoverchargedRespondentbyaddingCount
III.HadCountIIInotbeencharged,therewouldnotbeasplitresult.2Respondent's
3
Respondentreferstothe
split
intheresultsofthechargedCounts,nottheSupremeCourt'svoteline.Tobeclear,
Respondentdoesnotknowifthe
dissentingJustices'voteswouldhavebeendifferentifCountlIlhadnotbeencharged.
Page6of16

7. Answer,thePerCuriamOpinion,andtheConditionalAgreementandAffidavitmust
bereadinparimateria,i.e.,together,ortheAffidavitcanbereadtoobroadlyto
suggestthatRespondentcouldnothavesuccessfullydefendedagainstCountIII.The
CommissiondismissedCountIIIvoluntarily.Respondentissuedhispressreleaseto
clarifythathehadevidencetosupporthiscommentsaboutDr.Bernardandthat(i)
hehadnotbeenfoundtohaveviolatedanyone'sconfidentiality,(ii)hadnotbeen
foundtohaveviolatedanylaw,(iii)hadnotbeenfined,and(iv)thatwhathesaid
wastrue,evenifthetime,place,andmannerofhisspeechcouldbefoundtohave
violatedtwoRulesofProfessionalConduct.
TheCommissionseekstoexonerateitselffromthemessitcausedby
overchargingRespondentwithacountitknewitwoulddismiss.TheCommission
petitionstodeviatefromtheRulesafterentryofafinalOrder.Respondentmaintains
itisbadpolicytoabrogatetheconfidentialityrulesinRule23
§22.Itisariskto
everylicensedlawyerwhomightbechargedandwhoiswillingtoenterintoa
conditionalagreementofdisciplinewiththeCommission.Howwillanylawyerhave
confidencetorelyupontheCommission'srepresentations,oreventheRules
themselves,whensigningaconditionalagreementdisciplineandaffidavit?Allit
takesisforheatfromthedeanofIndianaUniversity,paststaff0ftheCommission,
orother"influencer"topressuretheCommissionerstopetitionforreleasethe
documentsunderA.C.R.9.
Respondenthasnothingtohide.Respondent'spressreleaseistruthful
andconsistentwithhisAnswer,theConditionalAgreementandAffidavit,andthe
Page7of16

8. PerCuriamOpinion.RespondentdenieshavingdefiedtheSupremeCourtorhaving
contradictedanyprovisionofthePublicReprimand.HeassertstheCommissionis
aidingandabettinghispoliticaldetractorsbypetitioningtoobtainanexceptionto
theRulesitischargedwithenforcing.
TheCommissionActedImproperlybyCavingt0PoliticalPressure
AndShowsPrejudiceAgainstRespondentGoingForward
RespondentadmitsthatheandtheCommissionnegotiatedaboutan
agreementforhimtowaivetheconfidentialityaffordedtoallattorneysunderRule
23§22(a)(5).RespondentandtheCommissiondidnotreachanagreementonthe
termsandconditionsbywhichtheconfidentialdocumentswouldorshouldbemade
accessible,orWhattheeffectofmakingtherecordsaccessiblemightbe.Then,when
negotiationsended,theCommissionuppeditsdemandRespondent—demandingthat
heagreetoagagorderinadditiontowaivingRule23
§22(a)(5)'sconfidentiality.
TheConditionalAgreementandAffidavitarenon-publicspecificallyby
Rule23
§22(a)(5).AbrogationoftheconfidentialityrulecouldweakentheSupreme
Court,asappearstobethecasehere,whereanarmoftheCourtdoesnotregarda
finalOrderasfinal.IsarehearingtheCommission'sobjective,whetherbyreopening
therecordinthisCauseorbyfacilitatingtag-alonggrievancesspeculativelybasedon
confidentialdocumentsnonehasseen?Thepublicdoesnothavearighttoexamine
theworkoftheSupremeCourtorthecommunicationsbetweentheCommissionand
arespondentwhenadisciplinarycomplaintisresolvedbyanattorney'sagreement
toacceptdiscipline.Creatinganexceptiontotheconfidentialityruledoesnotincrease
confidencewithinthebarorthepublicatlarge;itdoestheoppositeiftheCommission
Page8of16

9. canrenegeonconfidentiality.
Whenaconditionalagreementimposingdisciplineisreachedbetween
anattorneyandtheCommission,therespondentattorneymustadmit"Icouldnot
successfullydefendmyself
'
fordisciplinetoattach.Anattorneymakingthis
admissionmusthavefaiththatthematterwillbekeptconfidentialwhenpresented
totheSupremeCourtforreviewandacceptance.Otherwise,thereislittleincentive
foranattorneytoagreetodisciplineevenifheorshebelievestheoddsofdefending
successfullyarelessthan50%.InthecaseoftheAttorneyGeneral,newgrievances
alreadyhavebeenfiled3bylawyerswhodonothaveanyactualknowledge.Theyare
outragedbyRespondent'stoneinhispressreleaseandencouragedbytheSupreme
Court'sdeviationfromRule23§22(a)(5).Theseattorneyspublicizedtheir
communicationswiththeCommissionwithreporters.4Thisconductshowsthatthe
riskofaconfidentialadmissionbeingusedtoformanewgrievanceorcomplaintis
real.TheConditionalAgreementandAffidavitshouldbekeptconfidentialsothat
speculativegrievancesarenotpromotedbyreleaseofconfidentialmaterial.
TheCommissionclaimsextraordinarycircumstancesandpublic
interestaregroundstoreleasetheConditionalAgreementandAffidavit,butthe
Commissionalsomustshow(i)thataccess0rdisseminationcreatesnosignificant
riskofsubstantialharmtoanyparty,and(ii)thataccesscreatesnoprejudicialeffect
3
MarilynOdendahl,"'DISTURBING'CONDUCT':
AttorneyscondemnAGRokita's
response
topublicreprimand,"
(TheIndianaCitizen,Nov.3,2023,<<ht://indianacitizen.ordisturbin-conduct—anornes—condemn-r-rokitas-
response-1mmblimreprimandl»)
4
Id.For
manymonths,PaulaCardoza—Joneshasbeenwritingop-edpiecesthathavebeenpublished
inTheIndiana
Lawyerthatare
uniformlycriticalofthe
AttorneyGeneral.Thesepiecesappear
tobecommunicationsintendedto
influencetheCommission,whichisshown
bytherepetitionofher
employmenthistory
attheCommission.
Page9of16

10. toon-goingproceedings.Ifitcannotprovethosetwofactors,thenanexceptiontothe
confidentialityruleshouldnotbegranted.InRespondent'scase,disclosureissureto
increasepoliticalcommentary,whichcouldpotentiallypollutenewinvestigationsor
proceedingsinitiatedsincethepressrelease.InthesamewayitoverchargedCount
III,theCommission'sconductinfilingthePetitionshowsonitsfacethatthe
Commissionerscannotwithstandpoliticalpressure.ThelanguagetheCommission
usesinthePetition,inparticularParagraph14(bandc),showsthatitcannotbe
countedontogiveRespondentafairreviewofnewgrievances.
A.C.R.9(B)(1)setsoutfivefactorsfortheCourttoconsider.A.C.R.(D)
requiresatleastoneofthembyclearandconvincingevidencefortheCourtgrant
relief,butitdoesnotexcludeconsiderationofallfactors.Itisabalancingtest.5The
Commissionlookspastthreeofthefivefactors,butallmustbeconsidered."The
CourtmustconsiderthePublicAccessandtheprivacyinterestsservedbytherule
andthegroundsdemonstratedbytherequestor.
TheCommission'sassertionthatextraordinarycircumstancesexistis
notsupportedbyanythingmorethanthefactthatRespondentisastatewideelected
officialwhohasabigplatformandhighvisibilityforapressrelease.Thatnoone
disputesitdoesnotmeanthatextraordinarycircumstancesareclearlyand
convincinglypresent.RespondentadmittedinhispubliclyfiledAnswerthathe"could
reasonablybeconsideredtohaveviolatedIndianaRuleofProfessionalConduct"
5
Comparefavorablythemulti-factor
balancingtestforchildcustody
asastatutoryexample.lC§§31l4l32,31-
17-2-8.Notallfactorsareentitledtoequalweightbecauseitdependsonthecase.Thesamekindofbalancingapplies
here,butwiththecaveatthatatleastonefactormustbeprovenby
ahigherclearandconvincingstandard.
6
Thefifthfactorisnotapplicableanddoesnothaveanyweight.
Page10of16

11. 3.6(a)and4.4(a).TheConditionalAgreementcontainsthesamelanguagein
1H]18
and21.TheAnswerisapublicrecord.NothinginRespondent'spressrelease
contradictshisAnswerorthePerCuriamOpinion.Moretothepoint,nothinghere
constitutesanextraordinarycircumstancethatjustifiesdeviationfromtheRulesas
totheagreementbetweentheCommissionandRespondent.TheCommission's
contentiondoesnotmeettheclearandconvincingstandard,anditdoesnotoutweigh
thepotentialprejudicetoRespondentinotherproceedingsbeforetheCommission.
TheCommission'sassertionthatthepublicinterestwillbestbeserved
byallowingpublicaccesstotheConditionalAgreementandAffidavitiswishful
thinking.Thesubparagraphsto
1]14containmuchargumentandlittleevidenceto
proveservicetopublicinterest.ltcontainsacollectionofpressclippingsand
derogatorylanguageinacaseinvolvingtheAttorneyGeneral'sspeechinthecontext
ofabortionpolitics.ItisdisappointingthatanarmoftheSupremeCourtexpends
resourcestoreadandcollectarticlesinthepressandmediaoutletstocontinue
litigatingamatterthatisfinal.ItisinappropriatefortheCommissiontoconsider
politicalpressureinanydisciplinarycase.Itshouldnotremainenmeshedinapublic
disputeamongpunditsparsingwordstojudgewhetherRespondent"hadhisfingers
crossedbehindhisback"7whenheacceptedapublicreprimand.Itisnotsubject
matterthattheCommissionshouldbeinvestigating,ortheOfficeoftheAttorney
GeneralshouldbedefendingsPublicinterestisservedbestbytheCommissiondoing
7
Odendahl,supra,note3.
3
TheCommission,liketheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral,hasseriousbusinesstodoforthepeopleof
Indiana.Everyday,lawyersarechargedwithstealingfromclients,inappropriatesexualconductwith
clients,andfraudonthecourt,amongotherthings—conductthatposesseriousrisktopeople.
Page11of16

12. itsjobwithoutfear,passion,orprejudice.
Thesubpartsofparagraph14clearlyandconvincinglyevidencethat
RespondentcannotreceivefairtreatmentattheCommissionanylonger.Theseare
theweightiestfactorsinACRR9(B)(1)(candd).Theirweightrelatestofundamental
fairnessanddueprocess.Assuch,thesefactorsshouldoutweighconsiderationof
extraordinarycircumstancesandpublicinterest.
TheCommissionusedchargedlanguagewithactualknowledgethat
PaulaCardoza-JonesandWilliamGrothfilednewgrievancesagainstRespondent
afterpublicationofthepressrelease.9AnexampleoftheCommission'sprejudicial
languageincludestheallegationthathe"floutedtheauthorityoftheCourt."The
CommissionclaimsthatAttorneyGeneralRokitahasbeeninconsistent,whichisnot
thecaseasshownabove.TheCommissionquestionedRespondent'ssincerityand
acceptanceofresponsibility,whichhasnothingtodowithdeviationfromRule23§
22(a)(5).TheCommissionallegesdamagetothe"public'sperceptionoftheintegrity
andjustnessoftheattorneydisciplinesystem,"buttheCommissionwantstochange
therulesafterthefinalhornsounded.Rhetorically,whatcanbemoredamagingthan
changingrulesafteronehasreliedonthemwhenacceptingdiscipline?Itwoulddo
moretopromotethepublic'sperceptionoftheintegrityofjustnessoftheattorney
disciplinesystemtoholdattorneysGrothandCardoza-Jonespersonallyaccountable
forhavingviolatedRule23
§22(a)anddismisstheirgrievances.Theconfidentiality
rulesprotectalllawyerswhoselicensesandlivelihoodsareontheline.The
9
Odendahl,supra,note3.
Page12of16

13. CommissionersarewillingtodeviatebecausetheCommissionhasbeencriticized.
ThisconsiderationisnotareasonforcreatinganexceptiontotheRule.
TheCommissioncitesanumberofrulesfromotherjurisdictionsand
Rule2
§VIII(B)(1)(c).However,alltheserulesrelatetojudicialdisciplinarycases
anddonotapplytoattorneys.Theserulesdonotapplytoeitherthelegislativeor
executivebranchesofgovernment,Whereattorneysregularlyserve.Thecaseagainst
Respondentisaboutattorneymisconduct,whichisdifferentthanjudicial
misconduct.Attorneysadvocateandusefierylanguage;judgesfindfacts,make
conclusionsoflaw,andenterordersthatimprisonpeople,awardmoney,andadjust
relationships.Theattorneygeneraldoesnothavegeneralcriminaljurisdictionor
authoritytofine.Moreover,thecitedrulesarenotanaloguesbecausethoserules
relatetopublicstatementsmadeduringaproceeding,notafterithasbeenconcluded.
Attheendoftheday,noonecangetinsidetheheadandheartof
Respondenttomeasurethequantumofremorseorcontrition.Ifforcedtodefend
further,Respondentwillcomeforwardwithirrefutableevidencetoshowhehas
spokentruthfullyineveryregard,thathehasshowntheappropriateremorseso
muchastheRulesoutlinesuchconduct.HewillalsoshowhowtheCommissionis
beingusedtofurtherapoliticalagendathathasnotbeencarried-outattheballot
box—theonlyappropriateforumforpoliticalaction.TheCommissionneedstobe
disentangledfromongoingpoliticsdrivenbypoliticalcommentators.Ifthe
Commissionisnotcordoned-offfromthepoliticalstage,thenitsmeetingsneedtobe
madefullypublicwhencalledupontoconsidermattersaffectingRespondent,any
Page13of16

14. lawyerwhoisapublicofficial,orevenanylawyer.
Conclusion
TheOrderoftheSupremeCourtspecificallypointsoutthat
Respondent'sAffidavitrelatestoCountsIandII.TheCourtnotedinpassingthat
CountIIIwasdismissed.HadtheCommissionnotoverchargedacountitwould
voluntarilydismiss,theCourt'sOpinionwouldnothavehadtomakeany
differentiation.Respondent'spressrelease,asevidencedbyitstitle,isjustapublic
statementthatfollows-uptotheOpinion.Itmakesclearthathestillservesasthe
AttorneyGeneralandthatCountIII'sallegationsaboutbreachesofconfidentiality
andlawarenotthegroundsforhispublicreprimand.Publicationofastatementon
thesefactswasnecessarybecauseRespondentisapublicofficialwhocannotavoid
thematter.FurtherdiscussionoftheallegationsunderlyingCountIIIwasandis
inevitable,especiallyinpressandmassmediaaccountsthatpaintdifferent
narrativesforpoliticalpurposes,whichisnotanextraordinarycircumstance.
Respondentisvocal,aggressive,andsuccessfulregardingpolicies
importanttoHoosiers.Hespeaksinamannerthatthe"Establishment"abhors.The
contentofhisconservativemessageoffendstheLeft,ifnotLiberals.Respondentalso
enjoysthehighestvotetotaleverrecordedinIndianaforastatewideoffice.
Respondent'sstyleandcontentarenotgroundsfordisciplineasa
lawyer.Onthebottomline,Respondentadmittedareasonablepersoncouldfindhis
conductviolatedProfessionalConductRules3.6and4.4.Heacceptedapublic
reprimandforit.Hehasnotrecantedordeniedhisadmissiontoit.Hewasnotfined,
Page14of16

15. andhewasnotfoundtohavebrokenanylaws.Hispressreleasemadeclearthose
factsinhiscombativestyle,butnothingwrittenrenderedhisAffidavitfalseordefied
theSupremeCourt.
Notwithstandingtheforegoingarguments,Respondentherebydoesnot
objectiftheCourtdecidestoannultheruleofconfidentialitybygrantingthe
Commission'srequestdespitepublicpolicyreasonstonotdoit.IftheCourtwereto
findthat"extraordinarycircumstances"exist,thenRespondentsuggeststhatall
DisciplinaryCommissiondeliberationsandmeetingsthatrelatetohimare
extraordinaryandshouldbeopenedtothepublicinrealtimesothatthePubliccan
benefitfromobservingdeliberationsofabodythatisnotelectedandneverhas
meetingsopentothePublic.
VERIFICATION
IDECLARE,DEPOSE,ANDATTESTUNDERPENALTIESFOR
PERJURYTHATTHEFOREGOINGSTATEMENTS BASEDONMY
PERSONALKNOWLEDGEANDARETRUEAND'VCORR
Date:[/OL/zfi L/
TheodoreE/Rokita
Page15of16

16. 155E.MarketStreet
Indianapolis,Indiana46204
[phone]Phone
[phone]Fax
[email protected]
AttorneyforTheodoreE.Rokita
Respondent
WORDCOUNTCERTIFICATE
PursuanttoAppellateRule44,IverifythatthisResponsecontains
4,160wordsascountedbytheMicrosoftW0rd®application.
ls/JamesJ.AmmeenJr.
JamesJ.Ammeen,Jr.,
AmmeenValenzuelaAsso'.LLP
9-49
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
I,theundersigned,herebycertifythatacopyoftheforegoingVerified
ResponsetoPetitionRequestingConditionalAgreementforDisciplineandAffidavit
tobeReleaseforPublicAccesswasservedonallcounselofViatheOdyssey/IEFS
systemonoraboutthe2nddayofJanuary2024:
JamesJ.Ammeen,Jr.(No.
1
-
9)
AttorneyforTheodoreE.Rokita,
Respondent
AMMEENVALENZUELAASSOCIATESLLP
750BarristerBuilding
155E.MarketStreet
Indianapolis,Indiana46204
[phone]Phone
[phone]Fax
[email protected]
Page16of16
Respectfullysubmitted,
BV:ls/JamesJ.Ammeen,Jr.{fl
JamesJ.Ammeen,Jr.(No.51
AMMEENVALENZUELAA880IA'l'ILPS
750BarristerBuilding
ls/JamesJ.Ammeen.JrB