Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
As someone who studied the law and intends to become a lawyer, I have always believed in the justice system as a purveyor of truth and accountability. The law should operate above politics—driven by precedent, fairness and due process. But lately, I’ve found myself troubled by the accusations that part of the judicial process has become a political tool, rather than a safeguard of integrity.
That concern was cemented when I read this line:
“The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, with Commission member Bernard Carter not participating …”
These 13 words, the very first line of the charges filed against Attorney General Todd Rokita, carry far more weight than they appear to at first glance. They are not just a procedural note. They are an unspoken admission of a deeper problem—one that Rokita himself attempted to address in a formal rule change proposal submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court.
In that proposal, Rokita raised serious concerns about the politicization of Indiana’s attorney disciplinary system, particularly when it comes to elected officials. One of the most glaring examples he cited? Bernard Carter, the former chair of the Disciplinary Commission, had publicly endorsed, campaigned and donated to Rokita’s opponent for attorney general—while simultaneously aiding in an investigation into the attorney general. The conflict of interest was obvious, yet no action was taken to recuse Carter from the process.
Until now.
Though the Supreme Court has yet to formally respond to Rokita’s proposal, its actions speak volumes. By explicitly noting that Carter did not participate in the disciplinary charges, the court has signaled what hasn’t been stated outright: Carter’s involvement was a problem. The very concern Rokita flagged—politically motivated discipline—was quietly corrected in this one instance, without addressing the larger systemic concerns. I truly believe a system that lacks trust loses legitimacy.
Indiana’s attorney disciplinary system must operate with absolute impartiality, particularly when it is investigating the state’s highest legal officer. But what happens when the process itself becomes a weapon?
Regardless of how one feels about Todd Rokita, this case raises critical questions about transparency, fairness and the intersection of politics and professional discipline. If a commission member actively supporting a political candidate can still oversee an investigation against their opponent, the integrity of the entire process can be questioned.
The broader issue is not just one flawed case—it is whether Indiana’s legal system can maintain public trust when the rules are applied selectively. If this could happen to the state’s attorney general, what does it mean for the thousands of attorneys practicing in Indiana?
Rokita’s rule change proposal remains in limbo. I am interested to see if the Supreme Court will consider the proposed reforms. Will the justices confront the flaws in the system, or will they quietly move on without addressing the concerns that have now played out in real time?
The rule change proposal suggests clearer recusal standards, safeguards against politically motivated complaints, and enhanced confidentiality protections to ensure the integrity of attorney discipline. These reforms deserve serious consideration. At a time when public trust in institutions is at an all-time low, the Supreme Court should not avoid this conversation.
This moment is bigger than one case or one attorney general. Indiana deserves a disciplinary process that attorneys, public officials and residents can trust. Until these concerns are addressed head-on, that trust will remain in doubt.•
__________
Yates is director of diversity for the Indiana Republican Party, a political commentator and a law degree candidate. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.