ILNews

Indiana chief justice gets national award

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard is receiving a national award from the American Judicature Society for his "distinguished judicial service."

Selected by a three-judge panel from other states, Indiana's top jurist was chosen to receive the organization's sixth annual Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence, named in honor of the former chairman and chief executive officer of West Publishing.

Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker nominated him, writing in his nomination letter that Chief Justice Shepard "makes those of us from Indiana proud to be Hoosiers."

A seventh-generation Hoosier and graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, Chief Justice Shepard started his judicial career in 1980 on the Vanderburgh Superior Court in Evansville. He joined the state Supreme Court in 1985, and then took the chief justice role 1987. He's authored more than 850 majority opinions in his time on the court and is recognized as a national authority on judicial ethics and legal professionalism, and has held leadership roles as president of the Conference of Chief Justices and the National Center for State Courts.

He will accept the award early next year.

ADVERTISEMENT

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 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