A longtime Disciplinary Commission staff attorney will temporarily lead the agency until a permanent executive secretary
is chosen sometime next year.
The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission voted this morning to name staff attorney Seth T. Pruden as interim
executive secretary. Current Executive Secretary Don Lundberg announced in November he's leaving that job after 18 years
to become a partner and deputy general counsel at Indianapolis-based firm Barnes & Thornburg.
Pruden has worked as a staff attorney there since October 1996. He previously worked in private practice and as a public
defender since being admitted to the bar in June 1984. He also teaches undergraduate legal ethics at Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis.
Now, he'll fill in as administrative head of the agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting claims of lawyer
misconduct, supervising a staff of about 15, and acting as chief legal counsel to the nine-member commission.
A search is ongoing for a permanent executive secretary, and applications are being accepted through Jan. 29. Applications
are posted online at the commission's Web site at www.in.gov/judiciary/discipline, where more information about the agency is also available. Completed
applications can be sent 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. The commission will recommend finalists for consideration to the Indiana Supreme Court, which
makes the ultimate decision on the appointment. No timeline has been announced.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
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!!!
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.