ILNews

Disciplinary Commission head leaving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Donald Lundberg, the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission executive secretary, has announced his resignation as head of the agency, effective Jan. 1, 2010. Lundberg will join Barnes & Thornburg as a partner and deputy general counsel to the firm.

He joined the disciplinary commission in December 1991 and spent the last two decades investigating and prosecuting cases of alleged attorney misconduct. Lundberg also taught legal ethics at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington and Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis. He frequently presents at continuing legal education events on professional responsibility and legal ethics topics. He's also authored several articles and writes a regular legal ethics column for RES GESTAE.

Before joining the disciplinary commission, Lundberg worked as the director of litigation for Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc., now Indiana Legal Services, Inc. He is a summa cum laude graduate of what is now known as the Maurer School of Law and was admitted to the bar in 1976. He's admitted to practice in Indiana and a member of the bars of the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Being a part of this extraordinary court's lawyer regulation enterprise has been a singular honor," Lundberg said in a statement released by the Supreme Court. "It has also been a privilege to work over a period of eighteen years with a succession of thoughtful, bright and decent Commissioners and a truly wonderful staff."

The commission will launch a search for a successor and will eventually submit a proposed new executive secretary for consideration and approval by the Supreme Court.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT