A jet-set chief justice

August 7, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins: 

Every so often, you’ll see an Indiana Supreme Court order signed by an acting chief justice. Some recent court orders have Justice Brent Dickson filling in for Chief Justice Randall Shepard. Nothing out of the ordinary, just interesting to always keep tabs on what our state’s highest jurists are up to when not putting signatures on orders with their colleagues.

This time, our chief justice spent most of a week in July in Anchorage, Alaska, at a chief justices conference. He was there July 19-23, and his first full day back to work in Indiana was July 28.

Our esteemed high judge noted two topics particularly worth mentioning from this annual meeting: civics education and public information. He sees Indiana doing as well as most states, sometimes better than others. Another topic focused on globalization of law firms and how the chief justices have been working with international bar associations in the past three years about having more American lawyers practice overseas with temporary licenses and having attorneys from other nations do the same here. Sharing thoughts about the conference recently, Chief Justice Shepard said: “I have a pretty good collection of materials and so many ideas to share.”

Of course, he has some additional time to read those materials, and Indiana’s legal community may now see some more acting chief justice lines on orders, as our high jurist has set off for a vacation in Maine; he returns to the court office Aug 13. Word is he may not have even taken his laptop with him. Happy journeys, Mr. Chief Justice.
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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT