ILNews

From bridge builder to Boilermaker

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In trying to build two bridges across a major river between two states while coordinating with two state transportation departments, two governors, and an array of federal agencies – not to mention facing many local residents angry over the prospect of tolls – the staff of the Louisville and Southern Indiana Bridges Authority would sometimes get a little tense.

To relieve the stress, the employees would turn to the bridges authority then-Executive Director Steve Schultz, quote a random line from a movie and ask where it came from. Schultz would pause, think and then recite the movie’s title.

schultz-steve-15col.jpg Steve Schultz, legal counsel for Purdue University, stands in front of the Frederick L. Hovde Hall of Administration. (Photo courtesy Purdue University)

“On a good day, he’s got a terrific sense of humor,” said Charles Buddeke, chairman of the bridges authority. “He loves to quote lines from movies and books.”

The effort to build additional bridges over the Ohio River to connect Clark County with Kentucky languished for decades. Schultz was handed the reins just as another push for construction was started. Although he admits he did not know anything about federal transportation when he accepted the position in 2010, he helped lead the project to a groundbreaking.

Now he is using his affable personality, political acumen and legal expertise to guide another construction project – creating the in-house legal counsel position at Purdue University.

The Indianapolis native was selected by Purdue President and former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Schultz will be the first in-house counsel for the university, which had been the only school in the Big Ten Conference that relied solely on an outside firm for legal assistance.

He has never worked in higher education but the offer was attractive for multiple reasons. On a professional level, Schultz likes having the opportunity to work at a research institution that teaches future generations. On a personal level, he is happy to become part of a school to which his family has strong ties, namely his father who played football for the Boilermakers.

Also he was lured to the job by the chance to work with his former boss. Schultz served as chief counsel during the Daniels’ administration, and he accepted the governor’s request that he lead the bridges project.

“I just have a lot of confidence that he’s going to do great things for Purdue and really beyond Purdue,” Schultz said. “I think when he sets his mind to big challenges, he has a way of tackling them as I think he demonstrated in his tenure as governor. The opportunity to be a part of that, to maybe bring a fresh look at the challenges that face higher education and maybe bring some innovative ideas to addressing those challenges, is what attracted me.”

A generalist

Schultz described his career as an attorney as specializing in being a generalist. However he has learned from each of his positions and brings that knowledge to each new assignment.

His tenure as general counsel for Irwin Financial Corp. in Columbus introduced him to a stakeholder model which he then carried to his work in the Daniels administration as well as with the bridges project.

The model at Irwin was to balance its duties to its shareholders with its responsibilities to other stakeholders, such as regulators, customers and employees, Schultz explained. Whenever the bank had a dilemma or if there were competing interests among stakeholders, he said, the institution tried to strike the right balance and improve the tradeoffs.

Irwin struggled and eventually succumbed during the economic recession. Remembering the final 18 months at the bank, Schultz talked about how longtime customers were continually supportive.

“One of the things my Irwin experience showed was just how if you conduct yourself in the right way as a business, as a responsible corporate citizen, people will stand by you, loyalty is there,” he said. “Loyalty is there beyond the business transaction.”

Schultz began his legal career in Indianapolis at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. He had worked for former Gov. Robert Orr and then studied law at Yale and the University of Cambridge. Upon returning to Indianapolis, he settled into working in Barnes & Thornburg’s international practice group.

Robert Grand, Indianapolis managing partner at Barnes, recruited Schultz to the firm. The young attorney impressed Grand as being intelligent, hardworking and possessing a lot of common sense. Schultz rose quickly at the firm and, despite his young age, was often given first chair responsibilities.

schultzSchultz’s decision to join Daniels at Purdue underscores his commitment to public service, Grand said.

“This will be a very good role for him,” he continued. “He’s a very even-keel guy who plays well with others.”

In bringing his former chief counsel to Purdue in January, Daniels pointed to Schultz’s experience in state government and private and nonprofit sectors. The former governor described him as a tested leader who had handled tough assignments.

“Steve will ensure Purdue improves the way we procure and manage legal services and thereby help the university realize certain risk management, oversight and cost savings benefits,” Daniels wrote in an email.

Schultz plans to spend his first months at Purdue determining how to bring in-house the activities the longtime outside counsel of Stuart & Branigin LLP has historically done. Also, he will be identifying legal expertise already inside the university and developing ways to work together with that expertise.

The attorney is not sure what Daniels’ agenda for Purdue is but he has a hint from his work for the former governor.

“I think he’ll bring an innovative mindset to his position,” Schultz said. “I think he’ll also look at any particular activity that comes up in terms of whether there’s an opportunity to do it a better way. Again, if I know him, he’ll ask the question, ‘Do we even need it in the first place?’”

Bourbon and pizza

To get the bridges built in the Louisville region, the bridges authority developed a two-state solution that Schultz believes could become a model for other large-scale infrastructure projects. Specifically, the bridge project was divided into two parts with Indiana building the east-end bridge and financing it through a public-private partnership arrangement and Kentucky constructing the downtown bridge using traditional public financing methods.

During the time Schultz and Buddeke worked together at the bridges authority, Buddeke said Schultz excelled at legal research and was always steering the project. Many times the whole thing was on the verge of collapse but Buddeke would bring out a bottle of bourbon, order a pizza and Schultz would lead the group in finding a way over the obstacle.

“I would hazard to guess if it weren’t for Steve Schultz, we may not have the project,” Buddeke said.

Schultz is relocating his family to West Lafayette and preparing to expand his specialty in being a generalist into public education. To his new job, he will take a sense of pride in being a Boilermaker and, like he has in the past, will remember the lessons from his previous jobs.

From the bridges project, he said he learned what can be achieved when people dedicate themselves to serving a larger cause and put aside their differences. He also realized how being open to innovative approaches can ultimately be the key to getting things done.

“I think those are lessons that can be applied anywhere, even in higher education,” he 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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT