Indiana BLE executive director resigns

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After three years of being in charge of the Indiana Board of Law Examiners, a state court staff attorney has resigned, and the search for a new leader is under way.

The Indiana Supreme Court announced recently that Linda L. Loepker resigned Dec. 6 as executive director of the state’s BLE, according to public information officer Kathryn Dolan.

Loepker has been in that post since 2007 when she replaced longtime leader Mary Place Godsey who retired after 25 years.

Dolan said that no resignation letter was submitted and she classified Loepker’s leaving as a “personnel matter” and that any other details beyond her resignation date are confidential.

loepker Loepker

Justice Brent Dickson, who serves as a liaison to the nine-member BLE, said the process for how the court would name a new executive director was still being established. Notice will go out inviting attorneys to apply for the position, but an exact timeline for the search had not been established by Indiana Lawyer deadline. Evansville attorney Les Shively, who serves as chair of the BLE, hopes a new leader can be found early in 2011 as the next bar exam is set for February.

Until a new executive director is found, David Remondini, the chief deputy executive director of the Indiana Division of State Court Admini-stration, is filling the spot as acting executive director. The interim role doesn’t take away from Remondini’s existing duties as second-in-charge of the court’s administrative arm, a position he’s held since February 2007 when he moved from being chief counsel for Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

The state BLE plays a pivotal role in the legal community, overseeing not only the admission of attorneys in Indiana through the bar exam but also administering legal intern certification and the formation and renewal of professional corporations, limited liability companies, and limited liability partnerships within the legal profession. The Committee on Character and Fitness that’s made up of more than 300 lawyers conducts personal interviews of all those applying for the Indiana bar.

Loepker didn’t return a message from Indiana Lawyer, and Dolan said she did not know Loepker’s plans for the future or how this change might impact her national affiliations with organizations and boards relating to law examiner issues.

She served at the BLE helm at a time when the board has been under fire from multiple lawsuits targeting the bar exam eligibility and administration process. At least three suits have been filed in the past two years, and one of the most notable continues in the Southern District of Indiana, challenging the BLE requirement that bar applicants answer questions about their physical and mental health information in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That case remains pending before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Others have alleged the state and BLE are wrong in referring applicants to the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for questioning and also for barring individuals who have not attended law school from taking the bar exam. Loepker has been intimately involved in the process as well as the litigation that has gone through state and federal trial and appellate courts.

Nothing filed on those pending dockets by Dec. 17 refer to Loepker’s resignation in any way, and it’s unclear at this point whether her departure might impact the timelines and procedures of the process or whether she might need to re-appear for proceedings at some point in the future.

Dolan credited Loepker with being an instrumental part of the Indiana Supreme Court’s successful effort to secure a new lease at the 30 S. Meridian building in downtown Indianapolis, where the Division of State Court Administration and many other court agencies are housed. The previous lease at the National City Center at 115 W. Washington St. expired, and Loepker negotiated a new lease at a lower cost. It is projected to save state taxpayers nearly $1.5 million over the life of the 10-year lease that began Jan. 1, 2008.•


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues