ILNews

  • Home

Disciplinary Commission head leaving

Jennifer Nelson
November 4, 2009
Keywords
Courts, Disciplinary Commission, Discipline
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT