ILNews

Indiana chief justice delivers final address

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Standing in the same spot that he has annually for the past 25 years, Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard delivered his State of the Judiciary Jan. 11.

In many ways, the speech was the same as always, with his assessment of the judiciary’s accomplishments and challenges in the past year. But this year was more significant for the Hoosier legal community.

shepard Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, right, congratulates Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard before Shepard delivers his final State of the Judiciary on Jan. 11. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

This was the final address that Shepard would give as chief justice before his retirement in March. Judges and attorneys throughout Indiana paid closer attention this time, wondering what Shepard – the only chief justice a generation of lawyers has known – might say in his last State of the Judiciary.

The night before, Gov. Mitch Daniels gave his eighth and final State of the State address and thanked Shepard for what he described as “a quarter century of fairness, firmness and farsightedness.”

Giving a 27-minute speech that he titled “On the Way to Something Better,” the chief justice focused on the process of building a more unified and purposeful court system. He rattled off achievements that the court and legal community have experienced, and the list reflected not only the past 12 months, but many of the changes during Shepard’s tenure.

“The yesterday of Indiana’s courts lasted largely unchanged over decades. As in many other states, our courts were a collection of silos that rarely connected,” he said. “That began to change about a generation ago, and over time Indiana’s courts have become less like a collection of Lone Rangers and more like a group of colleagues with a common purpose.”

Shepard praised court reform efforts to unify state court jurisdictions and allow for more collaboration. He detailed court technology improvements that include a statewide case management system that in part gives women’s shelters direct access to the Protective Order Registry. Last year, 9,300 email or text messages about protective orders went out to domestic violence victims, and that’s just one of the many improvements Indiana’s embraced that he says is “literally saving lives.”

The chief justice cited family law and criminal justice examples to show how the state judiciary is better equipped to resolve disputes today than before. He said Indiana has more volunteer Court Appointed Special Advocates than ever, with the largest group of 1,010 volunteers being trained in 2011.

Shepard talked about court reform efforts and judicial opinions that have helped bolster Indiana’s national reputation. He said the Indiana Rules of Evidence and consistent caselaw have provided guidance for trial courts and lawyers, and that’s helped hold down litigation costs and improve access to the legal system overall. The chief justice also discussed Indiana State Bar Association efforts to create the first statewide lawyer-leadership academy with the help of Justice Steven David and said that through the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity, the state has doubled its number of minority attorneys. Shepard said the lawmakers and judges he’s worked with over time have been gracious, and that allows him to now “leave the stage with full confidence that we will succeed in building Indiana as a safe and prosperous and decent place.”

The chief justice’s address was emotional at times, as he mentioned his friendship with the governor and lieutenant governor and being able to lead a committee with former Gov. Joe Kernan that issued the Kernan-Shepard report on local government reform in 2007.

“Could there be a better cause, a more worthwhile way to ‘spend and be spent’ in life than working toward greater justice?” he said.

After a minute-long standing ovation, those who heard the speech praised Shepard.

Sen. Lindel Hume, D-Princeton, a 38-year legislator who has observed every State of the Judiciary going back to before Shepard’s time, said this chief justice changed his view on attending the annual speech.

“I used to just really hate coming to this, but once he became chief justice, it started being a real pleasure because it was certainly a different approach,” Hume said after the speech.

“That was probably good, because there is no question in my mind that he is the best chief justice the state of Indiana has ever had, and he is probably the best chief justice in the nation,” he said with a laugh.

Lawyer-legislator Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, was emotional as he watched the address, noting that as a lawmaker or as a practicing civil attorney in Morgan County, he’s seen all of Shepard’s speeches. Both are nearing the ends of their terms and retiring this year from their public service posts. Shepard thanked Foley in the speech for his legislative work through the years.

“I have a lot of admiration and appreciation for the accessibility he’s offered through the years,” Foley said. “His dedication to improving the judiciary, the bar and all the areas he mentioned has been marvelous and I’ve really enjoyed seeing that evolve.”

Allen Circuit Judge Tom Felts described it as a special day being able to attend and receive a mention from the chief justice about his work launching a family mediation effort for divorces involving children, which is now being used in 33 counties. The trial judge has attended 14 prior speeches, but Felts said he told one of his judicial colleagues as Shepard entered the room what an honor it was to be at this historic, final address. Felts saw the mark of a true leader in Shepard, as he didn’t take direct credit for the judiciary’s accomplishments but highlighted the work of his colleagues – though Felts argues many were inspired and motivated by the chief justice.

“He’s a class act and will be very difficult to replace, and though he’ll be sorely missed, I’m happy he is able to go out on his own terms at a time of his own choosing,” Felts said. “Specifically, with his head held high in the satisfaction of a job well done.”•
 


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. G. Michael Witte letter states he's suspended for three years. The case that got him suspended is identical to my estate case, including havin the Late Judge Deiter recuse himself because Newman had a conflict of interest with the judge. His Modus Operandi is nearly identical.

  2. SIGNED BY G. MICHAEL WITTE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY INDIANA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION DATED MAY 17, 2012.

    Your 6th complaint against Lawrence T. Newman filed on 4/12/2012. On 1/31/12, the Indiana Supreme Court entered an order suspending Lawrence T. Newman’s law license for a period of three years. More important, even after three years, Lawrence Todd Newman will not get his license back unless and until he goes through a separate proceeding to prove that he is fit to practice law. This is not an easy process, and the burden is upon Lawrence T. Newman to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is fit to return to practice.
    Because of the length of Lawrence T. Newman’s license suspension and the fact he may never succeed in getting his law license reinstated, we are not opening an investigation file at this time.
    Should Lawrence T. Newman seek reinstatement in the future, we will open your file and ask Lawrence T. Newman to address your grievance as part of his burden of proving fitness. We have attempted to notify Lawrence T. Newman that this will be required of him.
    It may disappoint you to hear that we will be doing nothing on your grievance at this time. However, the most our office can ever accomplish is to take away a lawyer’s license to practice law. We have already done that, albeit as a result of misconduct in cases other than your own. It makes better sense for our office to focus its limited resources on cases where the lawyers are still actively practicing law.

  3. Is there any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division? I am the unfortunate victim of a retaliatory lawsuit brought by Lawrence Todd Newman, the attorney from an estate case on which I worked as a unsupervised personal representative in 2006. The contract agreement for that case stated that the estate would be responsible for all attorney fees, but Newman refused to close the nearly insolvent estate when my duties were complete and his fees were paid. Instead, he tried to extort additional attorney fees from me by keeping the case open to address a wrongful death claim, despite the estate’s heir’s lack of interest in pursuing it and an expert doctor’s opinion that it would not be worth doing so. He also knowingly deceived me into believing that a “closing statement” was needed to close the estate, even though this requirement had actually been waived by the estate’s heir. The heir’s attorney filed a motion to have Newman removed from the case. After the court closed the probate case with prejudice (barred from further litigation) Newman illegally re-opened the case in another courtroom.
    As a result of complaints filed against him for these and similar actions, Newman has been suspended from practicing law for 18 months by the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. In retaliation, he has filed suit against me demanding additional attorney fees for the 2006 estate case, despite the fact that I made no agreement stating that I would pay any fees from my own assets on behalf of the estate. This lawsuit violates the rules of ethics, due process of law, and equal protection of law. Newman has been allowed to file ridiculous pleadings at an alarming rate and has been supported by a biased court system. Judge Carroll refuses to recuse himself from the case despite the fact that, by his own admission, he intends to grant Newman sanctions regardless of the evidence. When my former counsel discovered that the previous judge on the case, Judge Sosin, was a long-time close friend of Newman’s family, Judge Carroll commented for the record during a hearing that Judge Sosin in so many words “he finds the door “was weak for recusing himself from the case as a result of this obvious conflict of interest.
    This case is a public policy issue. Statutes put in place to protect unsupervised personal representatives in probate matters are being ignored. This case will affect thousands of individuals involved in probating and the personal representation of estates. Justice cannot possibly be served as long as a biased judge is allowed to defend a “vexatious litigant,” as Newman has been described by Judge Logan in Bradenton, Florida court. If there is any justice in the Marion County Superior Court Civil Division, this case against me will be dismissed with prejudice.

  4. Every affront to decency and every style adopted by criminals is not per se a constituttional violation. Only fools believe or espouse that.

  5. This was an unnecessary change in law, a needless fiddling with a tax that impacted very very few hoosiers, but one that erodes a tax base benefitting very many hoosiers. Just because some people wanted to chalk up a "tax cut" on their legislative brag-list, and didnt give a fig about replacing the revenue any other way. Really stupid. I am a republican my whole life and this just shames me like hell. I have to use a fake name over this because I know my fellow republicans are all brain washed over tax cutting too.

ADVERTISEMENT