ILNews

Disciplinary attorneys: Judge experience a bonus

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Having a trial court judge as the executive leader of the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission is a new approach for the state, but those intimately involved with attorney disciplinary matters say it could prove to be a positive change.

The Indiana Supreme Court announced Monday it had chosen former Dearborn Superior Judge G. Michael Witte as the Disciplinary Commission’s newest executive secretary to succeed longtime leader Don Lundberg. Lundberg left to join Barnes & Thornburg at the start of the year. The nine-member commission had been searching since late last year, narrowing the list from 24 to 10 before ultimately recommending Judge Witte for the post. He begins June 21.

This is only the third time in almost 40 years the Disciplinary Commission has searched for and chosen a new executive leader.

Judge Witte served on the Dearborn County bench from 1985 to the end of 2008. Since then he’s served as a temporary and senior judge statewide while also maintaining leadership roles at the state and national level. Though he doesn’t specifically have any attorney ethics experience, Judge Witte draws from his practical experience on the bench as well as his judicial ethics experience through the American Bar Association.

Indiana joins other states that have called upon former judges to take on the executive leadership roles for attorney discipline agencies, according to the National Organization of Bar Counsel.

Having a person with judicial experience serve as head of a state disciplinary agency can be a significant positive in terms of providing leadership with a balanced, experienced perspective, said the national group’s president-elect Bill Weigel, litigation counsel for the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Office of Lawyer Regulation.

“Public confidence in the fairness of the system is key, and judges are perceived as being able to act fairly and in the public interest in contentious matters,” he said. “Judges are usually perceived as not pursuing personal agendas, except to do the right thing. They have training and experience in separating the wheat from the chaff when identifying issues, making decisions based on the evidence and not emotions, and in making tough decisions in adversarial settings.”

Within Indiana, those who’ve led the state Disciplinary Commission and others actively involved in attorney ethics issues through the years admit they don’t personally know Judge Witte. But they agree that his judicial experience and reputation indicate he’ll bring what’s needed to the state agency’s leadership.

“In some ways, this can be a daunting challenge because you’re clearly acting in a position of authority in respect to the bar,” Lundberg said. “I think judicial experience is a good aspect of someone’s background for this job because judges, too, stand in a relationship with the practicing bar that means distancing yourself. Inevitably, there’s some distance in professional roles between the bench and bar, and to some extent that’s true with the lawyer discipline bar. You move in the same circles as a practicing attorney, but at the end of the day you also stand in a position of considerable authority and power.”

Once he leaves the bench and takes the executive secretary post, Lundberg encourages Judge Witte to draw upon the experienced and knowledgeable staff at the state agency. That’s great backup to have, as someone who’s coming in from the outside, Lundberg said.

Westfield attorney John Conlon, who is past chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Ethics Committee and has been a leader in that area for years, agrees it’s an excellent idea having a former trial judge in that executive secretary role.

Through the years, he’s witnessed the commission grow in staff and caseload, and the staff attorneys are essentially chief prosecutors on the attorney discipline matters. At this point, he would like to see the executive secretary evolve into more of a full-time administrator and leave the prosecutions to his experienced staff attorneys, Conlon said.

“Although I do not know Judge Witte personally, I understand he was an effective judicial administrator,” Conlon said. “Thus, he should be able to take on a more expanded administrative role very effectively.”

Longtime Disciplinary Commission attorney Seth Pruden, who’s been serving as interim leader since Lundberg left, praised the pick and said Judge Witte’s experience will be a benefit for the agency.

“He brings a perspective of the legal profession that makes him an objective observer,” Pruden said. “He’s not coming at it as a defense lawyer or prosecutor, or civil trial lawyer, but as a neutral observer. That is an excellent qualifier, and I think it makes him very responsive to the needs of our legal system and the court that makes the final disciplinary decisions.”

A full story on Judge Witte being named the new executive secretary can be viewed online at the Indiana Lawyer website Wednesday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT