End of an era

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After serving a quarter century as chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, Randall T. Shepard retired on March 23. State and local government leaders; trial and appellate court judges – past and present; local, state and national bar association leaders; former law clerks; and family, friends and associates packed the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom to give the chief justice a heartfelt send-off.

“The Colts without Peyton was hard enough; the judiciary without Shepard I can’t comprehend,” Gov. Mitch Daniels told those gathered. All echoed Daniels’ sentiment – the mark the chief justice has left on the Indiana judiciary has been made with indelible ink.

15col-shepardswearingin.jpg Randall T. Shepard was sworn in as a justice Sept. 6, 1985. (Submitted photo)

Prior to his retirement, Shepard sat down with the Indiana Lawyer to reflect on his 27 years as a justice. Following are excerpts from that conversation.

If you could go back in time and give one piece of advice to the young Randall Shepard just embarking on a legal career, what would it be?

I’d start a little before that. I think I would recommend that Shepard take a course in the Uniform Commercial Code as a law student. It wasn’t on the required list, so, particularly in the beginning, I spent a lot of time when we had a UCC case learning something that I’d have learned in a sounder way if I’d had Ellen Ash Peters as my UCC professor in law school. So I’d tell a young Shepard to be braver, go take a UCC course. You’ll save time later.

What skills or qualities must you see in a lawyer to encourage him/her to consider the judiciary?

For a judge, the ability to sense the difference between the significant and the routine is one of the most important talents. The fact that you have done many similar such cases is a help in deciding the ones that are before you today, but there is also a risk of failing to notice that this one on today’s calendar might be a little different. I’m not sure how one learns that – I guess trial and error makes a difference, staying alert, and not allowing yourself to begin to think of it as processing.

Really great lawyers that I know tend to talk not about my cases, but about Mrs. Jones’ case that I handled for her. The difference is understanding that for litigants, every case is pretty important. You do have to know when it is OK to make a fast decision and move on, but you also have to know when it is time to have your antenna up – is this one that needs a little more attention, or is this one that has a slightly different set of facts – is there another piece of law that applies to this? Good judges pay attention to that difference.

You have served as chief justice during a period of great change in our society. Has the role of local and appellate judges in Indiana changed during the last 25 years?

Judges take a greater sense of responsibility for managing pending cases than they did 25 or 30 years ago. Just a simple practice like holding early pretrial conferences in most civil litigation is something that was not particularly common 30 years ago but is now almost universal. This doesn’t mean the judge tries the case for lawyers, but the judge takes responsibility for managing the “when” and the “how” and, in general, takes responsibility for getting these litigants through the judicial system as promptly as you can, consistent with getting a just result. There were places in our state 30 years ago where a judge never picked up a file until somebody filed a motion, never held a hearing until somebody requested one, or usually didn’t set a trial date until both parties told the court they were ready to go to trial. Judges are much more engaged with lawyers now case by case than they were.

The other great change is the judiciary is interested in the broad role of the rule of law and of courts. … Judges are interested in what the rule of law does for society. You can see this certainly, very vividly, in a field like criminal sentencing. On one level, the object of advocacy is to enforce the law. That is where we all start out. But the broader question is what does criminal law do for society and what is the underlying object of this case. I think most people would say it is to sanction criminal behavior and maximize the possibility that it won’t happen again. … That is why judges, particularly trial judges, are frequently the ones that lead efforts at alternative sentencing and more intensive probation and why they are the ones who decide drug courts are important and create them, because they believe in sanctions across a range of severity, tailored to hold the offender accountable and maximize, to the extent you can, the possibility of non-recidivism. Are you there to decide cases? Sure you are. But why do people put you there to do that? It is to enforce the rule of law in ways that will make society healthy.

15col-shepardfarewell.jpg Chief Justice Shepard’s service was celebrated in a retirement ceremony March 19. (Submitted photo)

After retirement, what role would you like to take up in the legal community? How do you plan to stay engaged?

It is still very much a work in progress. I think I can kind of do best as a utility player. Most likely not doing a single thing, but playing multiple roles in varying degrees of time commitment. (At his retirement ceremony, Chief Justice Shepard revealed his plans for retirement include serving as a senior judge with the Indiana Court of Appeals, a visiting scholar at the University of Cincinnati College of Law, a guest editor for Indiana University’s history journal, and as director of Justice at Stake.)

What will retirement give you time to do that you haven’t been able to do before?

I’d like to spend a little more time working on things that have to do with history. There are two or three kinds of history that interest me: one is Indiana history, another is family history. And I have quite the pile of books that I’d like to work my way through sooner or later.

As you might know, the governor has asked if I’d serve on the commission for the bicentennial of Indiana’s statehood. I enjoy both research and writing on history topics and being directly engaged in trying to make those come alive for people.

What challenges will be on the plate of the next chief justice?

So much of what we do is collaborative and ongoing ... I think the ability to finance the court system is going to be close to the top of the discussion over the next few years. One of the things that we’ve tried to make happen, and we are making progress, is increasing the extent to which the court system and related services are financed by the state system rather than on the backs of county taxpayers. The Legislature, over time, has been moving in the direction of more state finance. It feels like with abused and neglected children or delinquent children, or on the criminal side the range of available sanctions or the quality of public defender work, that we are leveling out differences that historically existed on one side of the county line as opposed to the other. That is why I say this is not a new story, but it is one that is hardly done yet, and needs to be advanced further over the next few years.

After 27 years on the Supreme Court, what stands out as a “best day” in the office?

The day when Judge Dan Donahue of the Clark Circuit Court and several other trial judges came to visit the Supreme Court. ... He was then chair of what is called the Domestic Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference, and they had just finished doing one of their periodic revisions to the child support guidelines. Those guidelines were a revolution in terms of how easy it became to work out child support and dissolution and paternity cases. Judge Donahue and his committee came to us and said they had the idea that something similar might be possible with what was then called visitation – one parent has custody, the other has visitation. They came to ask whether, if they spent the time and effort to create the guidelines that covered custody and visitation, would the Supreme Court be willing to entertain adopting those.

15col-shepard-law-school.jpg Randy Shepard studied law at Yale Law School in 1972. (Submitted photo)

Well, the court said, yes, we’d be willing to consider that, it seems like a plausible idea. Eventually, they came forward with a set of proposals that had a new name – parenting time guidelines. That story is exhilarating on multiple levels. One was the Supreme Court was open for business to people who had interesting ideas and that members of the domestic relations committee thought of us that way, thought they could get a serious hearing and that the interesting idea might get embraced was a great statement. And the substance of what they’ve done is to realign everybody’s thinking on what it is we are actually trying to accomplish by using the term “parenting time.” There were non-custodial dads who were rightly taking objection to use of the word “visitation.” What do you mean visitation with my own children? What Judge Donahue’s committee did was say, “Let’s think about what this is for.” What it is for is to create a framework, one family at a time, in which both adults parent the children they are trying to raise. It showed ingenuity by men and women who saw a possible improvement and brought it forward; and eventually the General Assembly took the word visitation out of the Code and adopted parenting time. I remember that day very vividly. (The chief justice recounted several “best days” in the office, but space prevented all from being shared.)

You have been very involved in historical preservation, the Supreme Court courtroom, for example. Why was that important to you?

I think that Indiana’s legal history is important for modern lawyers and judges because it can be a constant reminder that Indiana is a place where high quality of legal work has been done and can be done in the future. There is so much rich heritage that today’s legal profession enjoys, and that ought to be an inspiration to all of us to do our best to build on that. … So as society changes and law evolves, it seems to me it ought to be an inspiration to us, it certainly is to me, that there have been many, many monumental contributions by judges and lawyers in this state, and we who merely stand on their shoulders ought to aspire to add to that record. So the physical reminders are that – they are modest reminders that important things happened here that mattered in the lives of people.

Do you ever reflect on what your career would have been, if it had not been in the law?

When I was in high school there were three things I thought I might want to do. Law was always on the list. The other two were foreign service and journalism. Those other two interests are still with me. I pay a fair amount of attention to international affairs and travel oversees. My wife and I have visited about 30 countries, and we hope to visit some more. With respect to journalism, I pay a lot of attention to the dramatic changes going on in the news business, how the institutions and platforms are shifting, how the electronic age is affecting how people learn things. I read a lot about that. I am also able to make some use of that interest in the courts in what I’ve tried to accomplish with public access.•


  • thats ok
    I didnt like a lot of his rulings but judges need to get paid. That is totally important both for attracting talent, retaining it, and also preventign corruption. For this I credit his efforts. Judges should be well paid.
  • Shepard
    Before too many tears are shed over his departure, let's also remember Shepard started his career as a typical political hack. The issue he spent the most time & energy on was raising the salaries of judges. His was not a noble career.

    Post a comment to this story

    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
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

    2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

    3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

    4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

    5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.