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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.