Latest news with #IndianaSupremeCourtDisciplinaryCommission
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Disciplinary commission rejects Indiana AG Todd Rokita's call to dismiss latest ethics complaint
Attorney General Todd Rokita speaks to the media on Friday, March 21, 2025. (Niki Kelly/Indiana Capital Chronicle) The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission issued a firm rebuttal this week to Attorney General Todd Rokita's attempt to dismiss a pending ethics complaint accusing him of misleading the court. In the 44-page brief filed Tuesday, Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, called Rokita's motion 'procedurally improper' and 'meritless.' She referenced the Republican attorney general's filing from February, in which he argued that the pending disciplinary case violates his First Amendment rights and Indiana's anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to protect political speech from frivolous legal action. Meiring repeatedly rejected Rokita's claims that three new charges filed against the Republican attorney general were politically motivated or an unconstitutional attack on free speech. She urged the state's high court to move forward with the case. 'This matter is not about politics. It is not about (Rokita's) viewpoint on any political, social, or cultural issue, nor is it about any executive decision or action by (Rokita) in his statutory office of Indiana Attorney General,' Meiring wrote. 'Instead, this matter pertains to the integrity of the judicial system and the attorney disciplinary process.' At the heart of the dispute is a press release Rokita issued just hours after the Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded him in November 2023 for earlier misconduct. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to violating professional conduct rules in exchange for a public reprimand. Although he agreed not to contest the charges, the commission found that Rokita recanted almost immediately, suggesting in a public press release that he had done nothing wrong. The disciplinary commission held that 'this retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.' One member of the nine-person commission, Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter, abstained from the proceedings. Story continues below. Commission's Brief in Opposition Rokita did not contradict the earlier disciplinary agreement — or the sworn affidavit — in his motion to dismiss. Rather, he maintained the disciplinary commission's latest charges against him violated Indiana law, specifically the 'constitutional separation of powers principles.' The attorney general also said he 'should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents without the constant threat of an unelected commission parsing his every word, ready to pounce with a disciplinary action when they perceive any imagined inconsistency.' 'Given the serious constitutional, statutory and factual problems with its case,' Rokita continued, the 'right thing' for the commission to do is 'withdraw its complaint.' Few actions could be deemed more in need of the Court's exercise of its constitutional responsibility than an allegation that a lawyer has lacked candor and been dishonest with the State's highest court. – Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission The commission disagreed. 'The Commission has no dispute with Respondent's right to issue a press release or to discuss the Conditional Agreement and the resolution of his disciplinary case. The fallacy in Respondent's argument is that he misidentifies the speech involved in this disciplinary matter,' Meiring wrote. 'The core issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent was candid with this Court in making sworn statements recited and relied upon in the 2023 Opinion. Simply put, Respondent's statements to the Court in the 2023 disciplinary proceeding, under oath, are the problematic speech.' As to Rokita's free speech claims, Meiring further argued that 'the First Amendment does not protect attorney speech that lies or misleads,' and cited multiple state and federal precedents that permit disciplinary sanctions for dishonest conduct by attorneys. Meiring asserted, too, that Rokita failed to file a required answer to the charges and instead tried to 'improperly' use a motion to bypass a formal hearing. Rokita additionally accused the commission of retaliating against him for proposing reforms to Indiana's attorney discipline rules, which he submitted to the state supreme court in November and released to the public in January. The changes sought to limit the disciplinary commission's power and protect attorneys from politically driven complaints. CONTACT US Rokita argued that the commission was aware of the proposal well before it was made public. He said the new disciplinary complaint filed against him at the end of January was a direct response. Meiring disputed those 'groundless' claims at length in this week's brief. She called Rokita's theory baseless, noting that the commission was already bound by a Feb. 4 deadline to conclude its investigation, 'and, if appropriate, file charges.' '(Rokita)'s decision on when to publish his Rules Proposal had no bearing on the Commission's filing decision,' Meiring wrote. 'Respondent's decision to publicly release his Rules Proposal on or about January 7, 2025, when the Proposal had been delivered to the Justices two months earlier, was his own timing choice,' she continued. 'Respondent cannot create suspicion of retaliation simply by publicizing his Rules Proposal closer to the Commission's deadline for filing the instant proceeding. Just as a litigant cannot prompt disqualification of a judge via the litigant's own action of filing an unfounded complaint or lawsuit, Respondent should not be able to prompt dismissal based on alleged 'suspicious timing' brought about by his own actions.' Central to the disciplinary commission's complaint is Rokita's sworn conditional agreement regarding his discipline, and a subsequent press release issued by the attorney general. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022. That November, a split-decision and public reprimand from state Supreme Court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Bernard. Rokita and the commission agreed to the discipline in the conditional agreement. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita seeks dismissal of latest disciplinary commission charges The parties disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. Rokita's punishment included a public reprimand and $250 in court costs. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita shared a lengthy and unrepentant statement, defending his 'true' remarks in which he attacked the news media, medical field and 'cancel culture.' The disciplinary commission pointed to those remarks — as well as earlier drafts of the statement obtained by subpoena, and a recent quote provided to the Indiana Lawyer — as evidence of Rokita's 'lack of candor and dishonesty to the Court' after he agreed to accept responsibility for misconduct. A decision on the dismissal motion and the disciplinary commission's new complaint is up to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the charges aren't dismissed — or if the disciplinary commission and Rokita can't reach a settlement agreement — the state's high court justices will appoint a hearing officer to hold a public hearing on the case and hear evidence. It would be up to the hearing officer to then issue findings and recommendations to the court, which has final say over the outcome of the case. Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include: a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed, however. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
21-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita seeks dismissal of latest disciplinary commission charges
Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a motion to dismiss a new complaint filed against him by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. (Nathan Gotsch/Fort Wayne Politics) Attorney General Todd Rokita is seeking to dismiss a new complaint filed against him by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, calling it an 'impermissible attempt to restrain an elected official and candidate's political speech.' The 26-page document filed Thursday argued Rokita did not contradict an earlier disciplinary agreement or sworn affidavit. Rather, the Republican attorney general maintained the disciplinary commission's latest complaint violated Indiana law, specifically the 'constitutional separation of powers principles.' Rokita's motion also contends that the charges violate his First Amendment right to free speech and Indiana's Anti-SLAPP statute intended to protect speech against legal challenges. Story continues below. Motion to Dismiss (2) In a sworn affidavit, Rokita accepted responsibility for misconduct in exchange for a public reprimand last year. In its new complaint filed in late January, the commission found that Rokita almost immediately released a statement contradicting his admission. Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, wrote in the complaint that 'this retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules.' Rokita countered in his motion to dismiss that he 'should be permitted to speak freely to his constituents without the constant threat of an unelected commission parsing his every word, ready to pounce with a disciplinary action when they perceive any imagined inconsistency.' 'Given the serious constitutional, statutory and factual problems with its case,' he continued, the 'right thing' for the commission to do is 'withdraw its complaint.' Rokita held, too, that the commission's action 'poses a significant risk' to his 'credibility with the bar and the public.' Central to the disciplinary commission's complaint is Rokita's sworn conditional agreement regarding his discipline, and a subsequent press release issued by the attorney general. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. That November, a split-decision and public reprimand from state Supreme Court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Dr. Caitlin Bernard. Rokita and the commission agreed to the discipline in the conditional agreement. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. The parties disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. Rokita's punishment included a public reprimand and $250 in court costs. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita shared a lengthy and unrepentant statement, defending his 'true' remarks in which he attacked the news media, medical field and 'cancel culture.' The disciplinary commission pointed to those remarks — as well as earlier drafts of the statement obtained by subpoena, and a recent quote provided to the Indiana Lawyer — as evidence of Rokita's 'lack of candor and dishonesty to the Court' after he agreed to accept responsibility for misconduct. But Rokita sees the situation differently. In his motion, he called the disciplinary commission's latest complaint 'unconstitutional harassment.' The document argues the disciplinary commission is 'thought-policing' the attorney general, and that Rokita is being retaliated against for 'daring to propose common-sense reforms to the disciplinary process.' Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita faces three new disciplinary charges He took particular issue with his press release issued after the original reprimand. Rokita pointed specifically to this statement made in that 2023 release: 'I deny and was not found to have violated anyone's confidentiality or any laws. I was not fined.' Parsing words, Rokita argued those statements are true because — although he was reprimanded for violating certain lawyer conduct rules — those rules are not statutory laws. 'The commission's decision to bring a disciplinary action based on differing colloquial and legal interpretations of a term in an attempt to fabricate misrepresentation where none exists is wrong and, frankly, shocking,' Rokita said in his motion. The attorney general additionally pushed back against the commission's reference to the statement he gave to The Indiana Lawyer: 'One thing that is clear is that the AG did nothing dishonest, illegal or even wrong, and he will continue to fight for the people of this state no matter how much the left hates it,' Rokita said in a written statement to publication. The commission used the remarks as further evidence of Rokita's failure to accept responsibility for actions that led to his prior discipline. But Rokita argued that the article's context shows his quote 'was plainly' referring to at least three conduct complaints filed against him by 'Democratic activists' after his reprimand and not to the reprimand itself. The commission's decision to bring a disciplinary action based on differing colloquial and legal interpretations of a term in an attempt to fabricate misrepresentation where none exists is wrong and, frankly, shocking. – Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita 'The Commission rips this quote out of context to create a false narrative that Respondent was dishonest,' Rokita wrote in his motion to dismiss. 'As the full context shows, Respondent's quote was responding to the recent wave of politically motivated disciplinary complaints and the ensuing investigations the Commission started as a result of those politically motivated grievances filed and intentionally made public during Respondent's re-election campaign by self-described liberal activist attorneys.' Rokita also accused the commission of retaliating against him for his proposals to change Indiana's disciplinary rules for lawyers to more clearly allow for political speech. A decision on the dismissal motion and the disciplinary commission's new complaint is up to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the charges aren't dismissed — or if the disciplinary commission and Rokita can't reach a settlement agreement — the state's high court justices will appoint a hearing officer to hold a public hearing on the case and hear evidence. It would be up to the hearing officer to then issue findings and recommendations to the court, which has final say over the outcome of the case. Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include: a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed, however. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Yahoo
South Bend attorney faces six Indiana Supreme Court disciplinary allegations of misconduct
SOUTH BEND — The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission has filed a complaint against a South Bend attorney alleging misconduct relating to his dealings with former St. Joseph County Probate Judge Jason Cichowicz and Penn-Harris-Madison school board member Matt Chaffee. The complaint, filed Jan. 31, outlines six charges against South Bend attorney Mike Misch. The charges connect Misch with a 2023 decision that resulted in Cichowicz being suspended for 45 days, and they accuse Misch of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by facilitating the provision of information hurtful to Chaffee, a former client. The charges include: Failing to provide competent advice while serving as counsel to Cichowicz and the Cartwright Foundation Engaging in a conflict of interest by serving as representation to Cichowicz and the Cartwright Foundation while acting as a fiduciary for the board of the Friends of the Juvenile Justice Center Concealing the sources of funding from board members and the public when directing funds from the Cartwright Foundation to the Friends of the JJC Advising Cichowicz to engage a business owned by Cichowicz's father for court renovations Advising Cichowicz to engage a business owned by Cichowicz's father for automobile purchases for the JJC Providing a local blogger with information that would disparage Chaffee, a former client But during a meeting of the PHM board on Feb. 10, Chaffee said the complaint included "only a fraction of the collusion and unethical behavior admitted by Misch and others." The Tribune emailed and telephoned Misch for comment on Tuesday and Wednesday but did not recieve a response by late Wednesday afternoon. In August 2023, the Indiana Supreme Court found Cichowicz had violated four provisions in the Code of Judcicial Conduct, suspending him for 45 days without pay. Background of Cichowicz suspension: Judge Cichowicz suspended for improper use of old client's money, no-bid contracts to dad The disciplinary complaint against Misch outlines several instances of alleged misconduct in connection to Cichowicz, saying Misch "played a significant role in the series of events that led to Judge Cichowicz's violations of the Code of Judicial conduct and subsequent discipline." Before being elected probate judge in 2018, Cichowicz was a private attorney whose practice primarily consisted of criminal defense and juvenile matters. In 2013, he met Levering Russell Cartwright, at the time a 73-year-old wealthy individual, who hired Cichowicz to represent him in his divorce proceedings. Cichowicz assumed power of attorney for Cartwright, and he had the authority to buy, sell and transfer property from Cartwight's trust fund, which contained more than $6 million. By 2015, Cichowicz had also become the sole trustee of the Cartwright Foundation, a charitable organization created by Cartwright's father that contains millions of dollars, according to court filings. According to previous Tribune reporting, this arrangement continued through Cichowicz's first four years as judge, but the disciplinary commission noted he should have ceased representing Cartwright when he became judge. But he did not do so even after being notified in February of the charges against him, and in fact resigned only July 31, 2023, shortly after reaching the agreement on his discipline. The complaint says Misch served as the Cartwright Foundation's attorney, and he provided Cichowicz with "legal and ethical advice" about whether Cichowicz could remain a trustee of the Cartwright Foundation after being elected judge. According to the document, Misch told the Disciplinary Commission that he had reviewed the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, conducted legal research and reviewed an advisory opinion from the Judicial Qualifications Commission, eventually reaching the conclusion that Cichowicz could continue in his role as trustee. But, the document says, none of the over 50,000 pages of documents the Commission subpoenaed contained Misch's research of the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Judicial Qualifications Commission's opinions, and Misch never contacted the Judicial Qualifications Commission about the issue. The complaint states that Misch "failed to represent Cichowicz competently." While serving as judge in 2019, the document says, Cichowicz appeared before the Friends of the JJC board to raise the issue of building a new courtroom in the JJC. At the time, Misch was a sitting member of the board, and he led a discussion about building the new courtroom using $100,000 from an anonymous donor. The anonymous donor was the Cartwright Foundation, the document states, but the donor's identity and the fact that Misch was the foundation's attorney were not disclosed to other board members. The Board of County Commissioners approved the project, similarly unaware of the source of the donation. The complaint also says Misch was the one who advised Cichowicz about how he could use the foundation's money to pay for the project. Cichowicz did not send the money directly to the charitable group, apparently to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Instead, at Misch's suggestion, the complaint alleges, he sent it to Anderson Agostino and Keller, Misch's law firm. With money left over from the Cartwright Foundation donation, Cichowicz and Misch allegedly discussed remodeling three separate breakrooms in the JJC. According to the document, after recieving an estimate he saw as too costly, Misch suggested Cichowicz retain R & K Ceramic Tile, LLC, a company owned by Cichowicz's father, to do the remodel work. R & K agreed to do the remodel, paid with about $25,000 from the foundation. No additional bids or estimates from other contractors were sought, the document states, and the other members of the Friends of the JJC were not told that the owner of R & K was Cichowicz's father. Another transfer of $60,000 in 2020 went toward purchasing three vehicles for use by the Court Appointed Special Advocate program, wherein judges appoint volunteers to advocate for children's best interests. The Friends of the JJC group spent $51,000 to buy vehicles from Victory Auto, LLC — also owned by Cichowicz's father. According to the document, Cichowicz sought Misch's legal opinion about the transaction, as Victory Auto was a family-owned business. Misch allegedly told him that there "was no conflict" without reviewing the Code of Judicial Conduct or contacting the Judicial Qualifications Commission. The document states Misch knows Chaffee through a shared membership in a club in St. Joseph County, and in 2022, Chaffee hired Misch's law firm to file a defamation lawsuit against the biological mother of a child Chaffee fathered. Misch performed the original intake of the case before delegating litigation responsibility to an associate attorney, who later assumed responsibility for an additional paternity case for Chaffee. In April 2023, the complaint says, Chaffee began a romantic relationship with an empolyee at Misch's law firm, and the relationship ended in October 2023. Chaffee then ran for and won a seat on the Penn-Harris-Madison school board. In April 2024, a series of negative articles about Chaffee appeared on the blog Real News Michiana (RNM). Local blogger Clifton French, who operates RNM, refers to the site as "real news for a conservative audience." The disciplinary complaint says French and Misch are "allies," as Misch's law firm previously represented French in a personal injury matter, and French occasionally consulted with Misch before publishing articles on RNM. On April 20, 2024, the complaint says, French contacted Misch seeking video of "a heated exchange" between Chaffee, the law firm's employee Chaffee had been in a relationship with and Chaffee's parents; Misch provided French the law firm employee's contact information. Three days later, on April 23, an article appeared on RNM titled "PHM School Board Member with history of paying prostitutes makes hypocritical statements against fellow board member." In May 2024, the PHM board held a special meeting to ask Chaffee to resign over the alleged misconduct outlined in the blog post, including criminal sexual misconduct and possible alcohol abuse. Allegations against Chaffee: P-H-M school board asks trustee to resign Though the board voted unanimously, with Chaffee absent, the resolution was non-binding, and Chaffee has remained a sitting trustee since. According to the complaint, by providing the law firm employee's contact information to "provide disparaging information about a former client," Misch violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. The document ends with a recommendation by the Disciplinary Commission's executive director, Adrienne Meiring, that Misch be "disciplined as warranted for professional misconduct" and ordered to pay expenses for the investigation, hearing and review procedures. According to the court's website, after the Disciplinary Commission presents a formal charge, the Supreme Court will appoint a hearing officer to hear the evidence, and the Disciplinary Commission must prove its charges by a higher burden than in a civil case. The hearing officer cannot make a final decision in the case but will make a report to the Supreme Court, which makes a final decision. If the Supreme Court finds that Misch engaged in misconduct, it will order a disciplinary sanction, its severity depending on the seriousness of the case. Sanctions range from a private or public reprimand, suspension from practice for a set period of time, supsension from practice with reinstatement only after the individual proves fitness, up to permanent disbarment. Email South Bend Tribune staff reporter Rayleigh Deaton at rdeaton@ This article originally appeared on South Bend Tribune: Indiana Supreme Court charges South Bend attorney with misconduct
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita faces three new disciplinary charges
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita faces three new charges filed by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission on Friday, Jan. 31, 2025. (Casey Smith/Indiana Capital Chronicle) The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a new round of charges Friday against Attorney General Todd Rokita — this time surrounding his defiant response to a prior reprimand. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita accepted responsibility for misconduct in exchange for a public reprimand last year. In its new complaint, the commission found that Rokita almost immediately released a statement contradicting his admission. 'This retraction of acceptance of responsibility demonstrates that the respondent was not candid with the court when he attested that he admitted he had violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules,' Adrienne Meiring, executive director of the disciplinary commission, wrote in the complaint. Story continues below. TR Complaint Rokita now faces new charges for making false statements to the Supreme Court in the conditional agreement and affidavit; engaging in dishonest behavior and misrepresenting to the Supreme Court that he accepted responsibility for his misconduct; and violating a third rule for issuing a press release that contradicted his agreement. The Republican attorney general did not immediately reply to the Indiana Capital Chronicle's request for comment. The underlying case stemmed from Rokita's televised comments about Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard, who oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022. Rokita was ultimately reprimanded late last year. Bernard, an OB-GYN, was also disciplined before the Medical Licensing Board for discussing the procedure publicly. Two hours after the high court handed down the reprimand, Rokita issued a public press release in which he maintained that his statements about Bernard had been 'truthful.' He said he agreed to the reprimand to bring the case to a conclusion in order to save taxpayers money. Grievances filed soon after by an Indiana doctor and attorney — questioning whether Rokita was sincere and contrite when he entered into the conditional agreement — resulted in the disciplinary commission opening a second investigation. When someone files a grievance against a lawyer with the Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court, the lawyer is contacted and is required to respond in writing to the complaint. After that initial investigation, the commission's executive director weighs if there is probable lawyer misconduct. If not, the grievance is dismissed and the case is never public. If the director believes there is, then the full disciplinary commission reviews the matter. The full commission is a citizen board made up of seven lawyers and two non-lawyers. They are appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court. If the commission believes that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct for which they should be disciplined, it files a complaint with the Clerk of the Supreme Court formally charging the lawyer with misconduct. That is the point where a case becomes public. Preceding deliberations are not public record. If the commission and the lawyer can agree to the facts of the case and an appropriate disciplinary sanction, a hearing can be avoided. The agreement is submitted to the Supreme Court for approval. If the Court accepts the agreement, the agreed sanction is imposed by the Supreme Court and the case is over. If not, there is a hearing. A hearing officer is then appointed by the Supreme Court to hear the evidence. The commission acts as prosecutor in the case and must prove its charges with a higher burden of proof than in a civil case. The hearing officer's responsibilities are like those of a trial court judge, except that the hearing officer cannot make a final decision in the case. The hearing officer makes a report on the case to the Supreme Court, which makes a final decision. Sanctions depend on the seriousness of the case. Possible sanctions include: a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. The vast majority of grievances filed with the commission are dismissed. For instance, 1,499 grievances were filed during the 2024 fiscal year, according to the Indiana Supreme Court's annual report. After review, 1,184 of those were dismissed, 'having no valid issue of misconduct.' This story will be updated. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
