ILNews

Disciplinary Commission seeks agency head

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana needs a new face for lawyer discipline, and applications are being accepted from anyone interested in the job.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission is accepting applications through Jan. 29, 2010, for the executive secretary post, which is being vacated at the end of this year. Current executive secretary Don Lundberg announced last month that he's leaving the position he's held since December 1991. At the start of the year, he'll become a partner and deputy general counsel at Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis.

As administrative head of the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting claims of lawyer misconduct, the executive secretary supervises a staff of 15 that includes 11 attorneys, an investigator, and part-time law student clerks and support staff. The agency investigates roughly 16,000 grievances each year and prosecutes a percentage of that total. The executive secretary also acts as chief legal counsel to the nine-member commission, and handles occasional trial work.

"This is a key job for the legal community," said Indianapolis attorney Sally Franklin Zweig, immediate past chair of the nine-member commission. "It is a position that works to maintain the credibility of lawyers as an honored profession. Consumer protection is a central part of that role and the executive secretary also has the opportunity to help assure that the community at large will have confidence in the lawyer discipline process."

The commission is doing a "broad" search, which means it is prepared to look inside and outside of Indiana, according to Zweig. Candidates should have at least 10 years of law practice experience, and must be admitted to practice in Indiana or be eligible for immediate admission. The current compensation is $115,000, and benefits include health, dental, vision, life, and disability insurance, as well as participation in the Indiana Public Employees Retirement Fund's benefit pension plan.

Applications will be posted online at the Commission's Web site at www.in.gov/judiciary/discipline, where more information about the agency is also available. Applicants can download applications and send to: Confidential Applications c/o Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 850, Indianapolis, IN 46204. All applications will be confidential.

Once applications are received, the Disciplinary Commission expects to review those as quickly as possible and discuss the issue at its February meeting, Zweig said. The commission will recommend finalists for consideration to the Indiana Supreme Court, which makes the ultimate decision on the appointment. No timeline exists for that to happen.

The commission plans to discuss the issue of an interim executive secretary at its next meeting on Dec. 11, Zweig said.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT