Republican AGs Face Politicized Ethics Charges

Republican⁤ State Attorneys General Face Ethics Challenges

Since 2022, nearly half of Republican state attorneys general and their predecessors ​have encountered ‌ethics challenges to ‍their law licenses,‌ according to research by The Federalist. ‌Many of these ‌challenges were filed by The 65 Project in response to their involvement ‍in the 2020 constitutional litigation case, Texas v. Pennsylvania. This case demanded that⁣ several states adhere to their ⁢election laws, including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

One example is Texas⁤ Attorney General Ken Paxton, who continues to battle⁢ politicized ethics charges two years after the initial filings related to Texas ‍v. ‍Pennsylvania. Even attorneys general from Montana and Indiana, who were not⁤ in‌ office during⁣ the ‍case, now face ethics charges⁢ for ⁤reasons such as disagreeing with the state supreme court or accurately describing an abortionist.

“The goal is to chill me,” said Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita in a phone interview regarding the ethics ​complaints ⁤against‍ his law license. “The goal ⁢is to⁣ shut me up.”

These attorneys general have been ⁣at the ‍forefront of ⁢protecting ⁤millions ‌of Americans from unconstitutional ⁣attempts ⁣by the Biden administration ⁢to change laws without congressional​ approval, a‌ practice⁣ that ⁢was expanded during ​the Obama administration. They ⁣have defended policies such as the Remain in ​Mexico policy to address illegal migration, protected landowners from federal property seizures, opposed transgender policies in⁣ school lunches,⁢ fought against leftist political influence in investments, and sued for records⁤ related to the ‌designation of ⁤school board protesters as terrorists ‌by the Biden administration.

In December, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost experienced a ​dangerous incident known as⁣ swatting, where‍ police were falsely called to his home regarding ‍a shooting. ​Swatting ⁢can ‌have fatal consequences.

“The role‍ of ⁢the‍ attorney general has⁣ become increasingly prominent because while Congress⁣ engages‌ in political theater, attorneys general are the ones making a real impact,” ⁣said Rokita, who previously served as‌ a member of the House of Representatives.

The Indiana​ Supreme⁢ Court recently made the unusual⁤ decision to publicly disclose ​its final agreement ‌in Rokita’s disciplinary proceedings. Rokita supports the transparency but believes that requesting the publication of​ confidential documents after‍ a case ‌is ‍closed can lead to new⁣ legal proceedings and⁢ undermine public confidence in the process.

Rokita’s situation exemplifies ⁢the growing trend of using attorney discipline as a political ⁢weapon. This tactic is not ⁢only⁣ employed against ⁢high-profile lawyers like attorneys general and ​former President Donald‍ Trump’s counsel but also against lesser-known lawyers who simply oppose Democrats in court.

Ethics Rules⁢ as a Political Weapon

In September, Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission​ Executive Director Adrienne⁢ Meiring used her⁤ discretion to ⁢publicly ⁤target Rokita’s law license. The alleged offense was Rokita’s‌ statement on Fox ​News about an abortionist who performed an abortion on ⁣a 10-year-old rape victim. The ⁣commission claimed that Rokita’s statement ‌violated ⁣state ethics guidelines by potentially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding against the abortionist.

Legal experts have noted that ⁣the charges against Rokita are relatively minor compared to⁣ typical ethics violations, which⁢ often involve serious offenses‌ such as misusing‍ client funds or judicial misconduct.

In ​2023, the Indiana Disciplinary Commission disciplined lawyers 15 times for ‌failing to correspond with clients and attend hearings, three times for felony convictions,⁣ twice for‍ owning child pornography, and once each for sexual advances on a client, injuring someone while driving under the influence, misdemeanor convictions, misappropriation ‌of client funds, and⁢ making false statements to courts.⁢ Rokita was ⁤the only ‍lawyer disciplined solely for speech that year.

Ignored Exceptions to ‘Speak No Evil’ ⁣Rules

In the Indiana Bar Association journal, Meiring ⁣has acknowledged two exceptions to state ethics constraints. Indiana lawyers are allowed‌ to publicly counteract negative publicity and ⁣share information that is already public. ‍Another exception permits prosecutors to speak negatively about a ⁤defendant​ if it⁢ is⁣ necessary to inform​ the public about the prosecutor’s actions.

Rokita’s actions fall within these exceptions.⁢ As an elected official who⁢ fits⁤ the National Bar Association’s definition of a “prosecutor,”⁣ he has the right to ‌explain to the public why he investigated an⁣ abortionist using​ taxpayer resources. Court documents in a lawsuit against the abortionist ‍provide ⁤significant ⁤negative publicity⁣ about Indiana’s response to child abuse through‍ abortion.

In 2018, Indiana Right to Life publicized state records showing ‌that the abortionist ⁤failed to report underage abortions in Indiana. It is also factually accurate to⁤ describe ⁣any⁣ abortionist​ as an “abortion activist acting‌ as a doctor.” These statements are based on the abortionist’s own ​disclosures and⁣ actions.

The ‘Race and Gender’ Inquisitor

The​ executive director‌ of the disciplinary commission, Adrienne Meiring, also​ plays a role in​ vetting judicial nominees ‌for ⁢Indiana’s governor. The⁤ justices appointed through this process⁣ handle any challenges brought by the commission against the licenses of‌ Indiana’s approximately 16,000‌ lawyers.‍ This⁢ unelected position‌ wields significant but often hidden power ‌over the legal ⁤profession and court system in Indiana.

Meiring previously served as a staff attorney for the​ Indiana Supreme Court’s Commission ​on Race and Gender Fairness,‌ which was established in 1999. This commission ​advocated for deliberate ⁣promotion of women ‌to⁤ top positions ⁣in the legal profession based⁢ on their sex, a practice that goes against constitutional principles. Meiring’s involvement⁤ in gender law aligns ‍with a pro-abortion stance.

Meiring’s article titled “The Impact of⁤ Bias” highlights ⁢her views on implicit ‌bias⁣ and the need for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the legal profession. She criticizes a Maryland court for using literary analogies in a case involving two ⁤black individuals, suggesting that any negative​ comments about black⁣ people are inherently racist. Meiring also‍ promotes the concept of implicit bias, despite its lack of empirical validity. She argues that both explicit and implicit bias negatively ⁤affect ⁣the judicial process and public confidence.

Furthermore, Meiring suggests that judges and lawyers should potentially face punishment for unintentionally communicating statements that a third party might⁤ find ‍offensive, questioning whether⁢ seemingly benign comments⁤ should result in disciplinary action.

Leftist Bias​ Isn’t Bias, You See

Meiring‌ commended Madison County in Indiana for implementing mandatory implicit bias training for⁤ judges and court employees following the George Floyd riots. She also facilitated Indiana judges’ participation in ⁤equity forums after the nationwide riots, which caused⁣ significant property damage ​and loss of life. Meiring highlights new ethics provisions that cautiously ⁤allow judge participation⁤ in ⁢protests.

While Indiana judges can publicly ‍support politically charged causes, Rokita is prohibited ​from making mild criticisms of an abortionist who⁣ performs procedures on children.

The disciplinary commission requested the disclosure​ of Rokita’s discipline agreement because they​ believed he was not ⁣remorseful enough. Despite agreeing​ not‌ to contest the discipline, ⁤Rokita maintains that⁢ his⁢ statements were truthful and factual.

In response to Rokita’s press statement, ⁣the commission complained‌ that it damaged the public’s perception of the integrity and⁢ fairness of the⁤ attorney discipline system. Thus, the supreme court, which ‌is vetted by the executive director of the disciplinary commission, rebuked Rokita once again.

Republican AGs Facing Ethics Complaints Since 2020

• Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr: For publicly discussing the ​findings of the special counsel report
• Alabama AG Steven Marshall: For participating in‍ constitutional litigation against Michigan,‍ Pennsylvania, and ‍Wisconsin’s election⁢ processes in 2020
• Arkansas former AG Leslie Rutledge:⁤ For participating⁣ in constitutional litigation⁣ against Michigan, Pennsylvania,​ and Wisconsin’s election processes in ‍2020
• Florida AG Ashley⁤ Moody: For participating in⁣ constitutional litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, ‌and Wisconsin’s election processes in‍ 2020
• Idaho AG Raul Labrador: For firing an ‍attorney who disagreed ⁤with his policy positions
• Indiana AG Todd ⁢Rokita: ⁤For investigating ⁣an abortionist who performed an abortion⁢ on a 10-year-old child
• Former‌ Indiana AG ‍Curtis⁢ Hill: For participating in constitutional litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s ‌election processes in 2020
• Kansas AG Kris​ Kobach: For not‌ following procedural guidelines in overseeing his staff
• Kansas former AG Derek Schmidt: For pursuing complaints about election integrity⁤ in 2020
• Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron: For ⁣investigating his governor’s purchase ⁤of a home from a campaign donor while campaigning ⁣for governor
• Louisiana former AG Jeff ‍Landry: For participating in constitutional litigation ​against Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s‌ election processes in 2020
• Mississippi AG Lynn⁣ Fitch: ⁤For participating ⁤in constitutional litigation against Michigan, ‍Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s election processes in ⁢2020
• Former‍ Missouri AG Eric​ Schmitt (now a U.S. senator): For participating‌ in constitutional litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s election‌ processes in 2020
• Montana AG ⁣Austin Knudsen: For disagreeing​ with the⁢ state Supreme ‍Court
• Montana former AG Timothy‍ Fox: For ⁢participating in constitutional litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, ‌and Wisconsin’s election processes⁣ in 2020
• Nebraska former AG Doug Peterson: For pursuing complaints about ⁣election integrity in 2020
• New⁤ Hampshire AG John Formella: For publicly stating ‍a truck ⁣driver’s‌ guilt after a jury found otherwise
• Oklahoma former AG Mike Hunter: For ⁢participating ​in constitutional ⁤litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, ‍and Wisconsin’s​ election processes‍ in 2020
• South Carolina ⁣AG Alan Wilson: For participating in constitutional litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, ⁢and⁢ Wisconsin’s election processes in 2020
• Texas AG ⁤Ken Paxton: For‍ leading constitutional litigation against Michigan,​ Pennsylvania, and⁢ Wisconsin’s election processes⁤ in 2020
• Former ⁣Tennessee AG Herbert Slatery: For ‌participating in ​constitutional litigation‍ against Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s election processes​ in 2020
• Utah‍ AG Sean Reyes: ‍For filing a friend-of-the-court ⁤brief​ regarding the FBI raid on ⁣Donald Trump’s home
• West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey: For participating in constitutional litigation against Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin’s election​ processes in 2020