ILNews

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.•

ADVERTISEMENT

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT