ILNews

Longtime Indiana Judicial Center education director retires after 30 years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Judicial education inside Indiana used to be much more like law school, where a knowledgeable "professor" would stand at the front of a room and lecture to "students" in the audience about a particular topic.

Once, Indiana focused more on academic judicial education than practical forms of teaching the state's trial and appellate judges.

That was how it was three decades ago, before Cathy Springer signed on as the Indiana Judicial Center's education director. She began Feb. 5, 1980, and those intimately involved with the process credit her leadership for transforming the system into a more interactive, judge-taught process via conferences and for those jurists to keep in touch once back in their own communities.

You might not ever know her role in shaping the state's judiciary if not for historical accounts and testimony from those directly involved. Springer is modest and doesn't put the credit on her shoulders, instead noting it's been a team effort touched by many people to get where it is now. But those who've been a part of Indiana's judicial education system say the state wouldn't be a nationally recognized leader without her leadership.

"Cathy is one of those people who for years has been such a treasure for Indiana judiciary," said Gibson Superior Judge Earl Penrod, a current member of the Indiana Judicial Education Committee who chaired the group for several years.

He described her leadership as being akin to how a duck travels across a pond: she moves smoothly across the water without revealing the continuous paddling happening underwater.

"She's unflappable by appearances and makes it look easy, but there's so much incredible work and dedication she has to making this all happen," he said. "She is a hidden gem for Indiana's judges."

After her 30-year career serving the state's judiciary and helping build up the foundation for what judges do in courtrooms across the state, Indiana is now facing a changing of the educational guard as the longtime director is retiring April 30.

"I have truly enjoyed working in this field; it has been a career of a lifetime," Springer said in a news release. "I sincerely appreciate all of the support and the life lessons I have learned over the years and the valuable friendships I have made."

During her career, Springer has been a part of the judicial center team that's coordinated bench-bar conferences and various judicial education programs, including the Indiana Mentor Judge Program in the 1990s that pairs seasoned jurists with those just taking the bench. She has been a member of the National Association of State Judicial Educators and was involved in a standards committee project, which led to publication of the "Principles and Standards of Judicial Branch Education" that guides judicial curriculum development and educational policy.

In 2005, Springer taught at the Leadership Institute of Judicial Education at the University of Memphis. That allowed her to help teach a program that focused on experiential learning, adult education principles, lifespan development, intellectual and ethical development, and personal development as a means for change. She's also served on the advisory boards for the Leadership Institute and Institute for Faculty Excellence in Judicial Education.

That national experience helped her shift the state's focus, Springer said.

In those early years after she started, the state's system was focused more on legal education taught by law professors at the time, she said. But through her leadership, the system shifted to faculty development in which judges would teach judges about practical items like ethics, demeanor, and overall wellness.

In 2000, the spring judicial conferences began after Springer and a small group traveled to leadership institute in Memphis and came back with ideas about changes here. While an annual conference is spelled out by Indiana statute, it wasn't until a decade ago that the three-day conferences began to offer a typical 18-20 half- or full-day programs, she said.

"It goes way beyond a conference and programs ... it goes back with them to where they're from," Springer said. "Each judge makes decisions on their own, but coming to a conference and sharing and learning together is a critical part of the education process. It's bigger than being a judge in your own court  - you're part of a big judicial family."

Former Lake Superior Judge James Richard, who helped set up the state's judicial education system in the 1970s, agreed that Springer is a key reason why the programs are as successful as they are today. He said she has always brought people together to do what's needed, expanding the program from a law school-situated initiative to that of an entire state judiciary. That's a thought echoed by many others involved in the state and national judicial education scene.

Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik, who led the education committee for four years, said Springer's leadership helped bring more participation into the way judges are educated.

"Cathy is really looked at nationally for her guidance and what she did for Indiana's most-coveted judicial education," Judge Vaidik said. "She's created a system that will continue with her being gone and that's best characteristic of a leader. This extends her fingers into the future."

The difference from what other states do is evident every time he teaches outside Indiana and then returns for a conference or program here, according to Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes, who's a member of the judicial education committee and has taught judicial education nationally.

"She's made an indelible mark," he said. "I've taught all over the country and seen it presented here and in other states, but those others don't have the same feel as Indiana conferences do. The big difference is they don't have Cathy Springer. We have a lot to be thankful for."

He credits Springer for first getting him involved with judicial education - something he said is now a passion of his.

"I love to teach, but I wouldn't have ever known that if Cathy hadn't encouraged me to do that for a judicial seminar once," the judge said.

One of the biggest changes she's seen in her career has been the evolution of technology and how that impacts judicial education, Springer said. Now, judges are able to keep in touch through e-mail and listservs long after attending a session or conference and information can be simply posted online for more convenience, she said.

Just because she's retiring from fulltime service, Springer expects she'll still be involved as much as possible. She plans to spend more time with family and friends, traveling, and consulting in the adult education field. The Indiana Judicial Center has launched a search for her successor.

Avoiding sole credit for the three decades of accomplishments, Springer said she hopes her legacy helps ensure Indiana's judicial education continues evolving and expanding.

"To see it can go on, that it was not just a product of one person," she said. "I hope people will continue coming together the way they have and those judges who've been here longer will continue giving back to the judiciary."

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