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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT