Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita sued current and former members of the state's attorney disciplinary commission on Thursday, alleging years of retaliation and asking a federal judge to block a demand that he answer an ethics grievance. The 34-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, claims disciplinary officials have targeted Rokita since 2022 over his public statements on issues such as abortion and immigration.
The lawsuit names nine current members of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, five former members, and Executive Director Adrienne Meiring. The commission, an arm of the Indiana Supreme Court, is tasked with investigating and prosecuting allegations of attorney misconduct.
The latest trigger for the lawsuit, according to Rokita, is a grievance questioning whether he used his office to pursue a personal dispute with a jet ski seller. Rokita denies this allegation. Rokita's attorneys assert in the complaint that "General Rokita does not forfeit the freedom of speech by serving as Attorney General or by holding a law license."
Rokita is seeking a federal order to block what he alleges is a pattern of retaliation, along with compensatory and punitive damages over alleged disclosures of confidential disciplinary proceedings. He also wants a court order barring current commission officials from retaliating against him or disclosing confidential proceedings.
In a news release issued Friday, Rokita accused the commission of political bias. He specifically cited member Bernard Carter, the Lake County prosecutor, for supporting Rokita’s election opponent while serving on the commission and investigating him. Rokita stated, "The First Amendment does not disappear because someone holds a law license or is in an elected office."
This dispute primarily centers on a grievance filed in December 2025 by Jess Sampson, a Rochester man. Rokita's office is separately suing Sampson over alleged consumer protection violations stemming from a personal jet ski transaction by the attorney general. Sampson's grievance questioned whether Rokita was using his office for a personal matter, an allegation Rokita denies, arguing that reporting suspected wrongdoing to his office's Consumer Protection Division was constitutionally protected.
A Fulton County judge in June rejected Sampson’s motions to dismiss the state’s case and disqualify the attorney general’s office, finding the action and claims did not violate professional conduct rules. However, the judge noted that the disciplinary commission has the ultimate authority to determine if a violation occurred. Rokita's federal complaint states he brought concerns about Sampson to the Consumer Protection Division as a consumer, which then uncovered broader violations.
The state is seeking restitution for Rokita in the consumer protection case, though his attorneys emphasize he is not counsel of record. The federal complaint notes that one of the state's 11 counts in that case concerns only Rokita's transaction. Sampson's account, included in exhibits to Rokita's lawsuit, disputes Rokita's characterization of their dealings, stating he sold the jet ski as is for $3,000 and that Rokita failed to follow engine break-in instructions.
Rokita's federal lawsuit argues that neither Sampson's grievance nor the commission's demand letter identified a professional conduct rule violated by the transaction itself. A letter dated July 29, attached to Rokita's lawsuit, shows the commission demanded a written response and warned that failing to cooperate could lead to suspension of Rokita's law license or other discipline. The lawsuit states the Sampson grievance had not yet been formally docketed by the commission, which Rokita’s attorneys argue allows him to seek federal intervention without halting an ongoing state disciplinary proceeding. He seeks a declaration from the federal court that he need not respond to Sampson’s grievance and has requested a jury trial.
The federal complaint frames the demand to respond to Sampson's grievance as the latest in a series of retaliatory investigations dating back to 2022. Rokita's disciplinary history includes a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court in 2023 over televised comments he made regarding Dr. Caitlin Bernard. Rokita admitted to two professional conduct violations in that case. A second disciplinary case, concerning statements made after the reprimand, was dismissed in October 2025 after an agreement was reached. The complaint also points to grievances related to Rokita's warnings about diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, his office's brief supporting Donald Trump's presidential ballot eligibility, and his criticism of state Sen. Liz Brown over immigration legislation.
Rokita alleges the commission repeatedly demanded responses under threat of discipline, prolonged investigations, and damaged his reputation, even when it ultimately declined to bring charges. The lawsuit specifically accuses Bernard Carter, a Democrat, of endorsing Rokita's 2024 opponent, Destiny Wells, and hosting a campaign event for her while serving on the commission investigating Rokita. Rokita alleges Wells subsequently highlighted the disciplinary matters in campaign advertising. The damages claims focus on alleged disclosures of confidential grievance and investigation materials, which Rokita claims the commission sent to complainants who then shared them with reporters. He is seeking to hold current and former commissioners and Meiring personally liable for these alleged disclosures.
The lawsuit cites $491,508 in taxpayer-funded legal expenses for Rokita's disciplinary defense between 2022 and 2025, covering four outside law firms and at least six disciplinary matters. Rokita is represented in the federal case by Paul Mullin and E. Ryan Shouse of Indianapolis, along with Gene Schaerr, H. Christopher Bartolomucci, and Justin Miller of Washington, D.C.
