ILNews

Interim disciplinary chief named

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT