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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT