Indiana BLE executive director resigns

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After three years of being in charge of the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, a state court staff attorney has resigned, and the search for a new leader is under way.

The Indiana Supreme Court announced recently that Linda L. Loepker resigned Dec. 6 as executive director of the state’s BLE, according to public information officer Kathryn Dolan.

Loepker has been in that post since 2007 when she replaced longtime leader Mary Place Godsey who retired after 25 years.

Dolan said that no resignation letter was submitted and she classified Loepker’s leaving as a “personnel matter” and that any other details beyond her resignation date are confidential.

loepker Loepker

Justice Brent Dickson, who serves as a liaison to the nine-member BLE, said the process for how the court would name a new executive director was still being established. Notice will go out inviting attorneys to apply for the position, but an exact timeline for the search had not been established by Indiana Lawyer deadline. Evansville attorney Les Shively, who serves as chair of the BLE, hopes a new leader can be found early in 2011 as the next bar exam is set for February.

Until a new executive director is found, David Remondini, the chief deputy executive director of the Indiana Division of State Court Admini-stration, is filling the spot as acting executive director. The interim role doesn’t take away from Remondini’s existing duties as second-in-charge of the court’s administrative arm, a position he’s held since February 2007 when he moved from being chief counsel for Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

The state BLE plays a pivotal role in the legal community, overseeing not only the admission of attorneys in Indiana through the bar exam but also administering legal intern certification and the formation and renewal of professional corporations, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships within the legal profession. The Committee on Character and Fitness that’s made up of more than 300 lawyers conducts personal interviews of all those applying for the Indiana bar.

Loepker didn’t return a message from Indiana Lawyer, and Dolan said she did not know Loepker’s plans for the future or how this change might impact her national affiliations with organizations and boards relating to law examiner issues.

She served at the BLE helm at a time when the board has been under fire from multiple lawsuits targeting the bar exam eligibility and administration process. At least three suits have been filed in the past two years, and one of the most notable continues in the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the BLE requirement that bar applicants answer questions about their physical and mental health information in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That case remains pending before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Others have alleged the state and BLE are wrong in referring applicants to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for questioning and also for barring individuals who have not attended law school from taking the bar exam. Loepker has been intimately involved in the process as well as the litigation that has gone through state and federal trial and appellate courts.

Nothing filed on those pending dockets by Dec. 17 refer to Loepker’s resignation in any way, and it’s unclear at this point whether her departure might impact the timelines and procedures of the process or whether she might need to re-appear for proceedings at some point in the future.

Dolan credited Loepker with being an instrumental part of the Indiana Supreme Court’s successful effort to secure a new lease at the 30 S. Meridian building in downtown Indianapolis, where the Division of State Court Administration and many other court agencies are housed. The previous lease at the National City Center at 115 W. Washington St. expired, and Loepker negotiated a new lease at a lower cost. It is projected to save state taxpayers nearly $1.5 million over the life of the 10-year lease that began Jan. 1, 2008.•


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?