ILNews

Chief justice completing his 'dream job'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Being a judge wasn’t something Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard originally had on his list of lifetime interests.

But an unexpected path led him to a position he says has been a “dream job.” Now, after 27 years on the Indiana Supreme Court and a quarter century as chief justice, he is ready to start the next chapter in his life.

With his 65th birthday approaching on Christmas Eve, Shepard announced Dec. 7 that he would be stepping down from the state’s highest court on March 4, the date that his current five-year term as chief justice is scheduled to expire.
 

shepard Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“He could have left years ago and still went down as a great justice in our state’s history, but he’s continued to have a remarkable impact

on our legal community and cause of justice everywhere,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said.

Pointing to the court’s calendar and timing of the chief justice appointment as factors, Shepard said nothing specific pushed him to step down now. But it’s something he has discussed with his family and this felt like the best time to leave.

After joining the appellate bench in September 1985, Shepard became chief justice in March 1987 and has been reappointed four times. He was last retained as a justice in 2008 and his term would have run through 2018.
 

EXTRA
Click here to view some of Justice Shepard's accomplishments.

“I’ve heard others say that they felt it was just time to let someone else take over, and that’s how it feels for me,” he said. “This is a natural thing … well, mostly natural when it’s secondary to serving out the full term. As a family we’ve faced the question, ‘Is this something we still want to be committed to?’ The answer has been yes, but we decided this year it’s time to let someone else take the lead.”

Shepard will continue in the chief justice role until his retirement in March. He will give his final State of the Judiciary address Jan. 11.

“I’ve committed most of my adult life to this, trying to improve the quality of justice for our state and occasionally for other places,” he said. “It’s proven every day to have been the right choice.”

A Princeton University undergraduate who earned a degree from Yale Law School in 1972, Shepard served briefly as special assistant to the Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation before returning to Indiana and working as chief assistant to the mayor of Evansville. He made unsuccessful bids for political office before his eventual judicial election, something that a friend convinced him might be a good idea in 1980 despite his initial thought he was too young and inexperienced as a solo practitioner. He became Vanderburgh Superior judge in 1981 and stayed at the trial court level for four years until Republican Gov. Robert Orr selected him to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Donald Hunter. After being on the court for a little more than a year, the Indiana Judicial Nominshepardating Commission chose Shepard to succeed Chief Justice Richard Givan for that administrative post.

The rest is history, Shepard says with a laugh.

His legal legacy

Authoring nearly 900 opinions during his time on the court and 68 law review articles, Shepard has ushered in monumental changes in the state’s judiciary. He’s directed changes that have strengthened capital case standards, made the Supreme Court one of “last resort” where it has discretion over most appeals, and opened up the appellate courts’ doors to cameras and online live broadcasts during oral arguments. Shepard also co-created the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity in 1997. In 2007, he co-chaired the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform with former Gov. Joe Kernan, an effort that led to publication of the “Kernan-Shepard Report” on streamlining government.

The chief justice says that many of the accomplishments during his tenure – achievements he’s credited for shepherding – have largely been ideas and initiatives from his fellow jurists and lawyers.

“I don’t know how many times people have come through that door with an idea, and all I’ve really had to say was ‘OK, I like it.’ The broad change we’ve seen has been the product of hundreds of others in our legal community, and I’m proud we can use this time to celebrate how all of us have brought us to this point.”

The chief justice said the nicest thing he has ever heard someone say is that Indiana’s high court “cares about the cases it never sees,” and he has worked diligently through the years to make that impact outside the court more noticeable.

Those in the legal community say Shepard’s reach goes far beyond any case or specific Indiana issue and extends to every level of the practice of law in and outside the state. They say he’s a trailblazer who has made a difference in everything from court structure, practicing standards and continuing legal education.

Zoeller recalls attending the chief’s investiture ceremony in 1985 and Shepard saying how his goal was to have judges and courts throughout the country look to what Indiana was doing. That’s exactly what Shepard has done, and he’s also improved the foundation of the judiciary in Indiana in working with the legislative and executive leaders.shepard-commission

Dave Remondini, who was the chief’s justice’s counsel and court spokesman for more than a decade before becoming second-in-command at the Division of State Court Administration in 2007, struggled to find the words to describe Shepard’s impact. Starting as a reporter covering the court and Statehouse in the late 1980s, Remondini has been a key observer of Shepard’s time leading the Indiana judiciary.

“Groundbreaking and innovative come to mind, but really I think we’re light years from where we were then,” he said, noting that the most monumental change has been the chief justice’s work to make the court turn outward from itself.

“People can always find ways to improve the courts, but looking back, the citizens of Indiana have infinitely better access to justice at the courthouse door than they did before,” he said.

Remondini said Shepard’s leadership and vision are largely responsible for that, and he’s always been a “force-enabler” for the judiciary and legal community. It’s a shame Shepard never served beyond Indiana, he said.

“It’s very clear that we’ve been privileged to have him as chief justice for so long, but I think it’s a shame he never served anywhere on the national stage,” Remondini said. “He would have brought the same class, common sense and civility to any appellate bench. The impact he’s had on history could have been even greater, and I think that’s a loss for the country.”

What’s next?

The seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, which Shepard chairs, will begin interviewing candidates in February and Gov. Mitch Daniels will select the state’s 107th justice from three finalists. The commission will subsequently choose who from the high court will succeed Shepard as chief justice.

As for Shepard, he hasn’t made any decisions yet as to his future.

He said there’s “a lot I’m interested in doing,” and he might end up doing more than one thing. But he said those plans will be made closer to the time he leaves the bench. He plans to continue in a senior judge capacity, something many other judges have done after their official tenures comes to a close. He’s also not sure if he will embrace the idea of traveling and talking about judicial independence, something other past judges at the state and national levels have done.

One thing is certain for now: he’s not planning to leave Indiana, even for the appealing notion of teaching out East where he received his undergraduate and legal education.

“This is our home,” he said, reflecting on his being the seventh generation to live in Indiana. “I don’t know what the next chapter is going to be, but this has been a wonderful place to spend a life.”•

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

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. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT