ILNews

Indiana chief justice's retirement 'a natural thing'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard – the longest-serving state court chief justice in the nation – is retiring from the bench in March after nearly 27 years on the appellate bench and a quarter century in that top administrative position.

The chief justice announced Wednesday that he will leave the bench March 4, 2012.

Turning 65 on Christmas Eve, he said there was nothing specific that required him to retire at this time. His term as chief justice is set to expire in March, and the Judicial Nominating Commission is expected to begin discussing in the next month who should fill that administrative role. After joining the bench in September 1985, Shepard became chief justice in March 1987 and has been reappointed four times. He was last retained as a justice in 2008 and his term would have run through 2018.

Pointing to the court’s calendar and timing of the chief justice appointment as factors, Shepard said nothing specific pushed him to step down now but it’s something he’s weighed in years past with his family and this felt like the best time to leave.

“This is a natural thing … well, mostly natural when it’s secondary to serving out the full term,” he said. “As a family we’ve faced the question, ‘Is this something we still want to be committed to?' The answer has been yes, but we decided this year it’s time to let someone else take the lead.”

He hasn’t made any plans on what his future holds, but said there’s “a lot I’m interested in doing.” Those plans will likely come once he leaves the bench, he said. Until that time, Shepard will continue in the chief justice role and, among other things, will give his final State of the Judiciary address in January.

“This has been a wonderful place to spend a life, and I’ve made so many friends here,” he said.

Many court employees learned of the news earlier this week and at the Indiana Statehouse on Wednesday morning after the announcement, many were emotional. State leaders including Gov. Mitch Daniels and Lt. Gov. Becky Skillman offered their thoughts about the chief’s retirement, as well as Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

"I was privileged to have been present at the investiture of Chief Justice Shepard in 1985 and he has fulfilled his pledge to transform the Indiana Supreme Court into one that is nationally respected and whose legal insight and analysis serves to lead the development of the law,” Zoeller said in a statement. “His tenure will be highly rated in the history of our state.”

Authoring more than 900 opinions during his time on the court and 68 law review articles, Shepard has ushered in monumental changes in the state’s judiciary during the past quarter century. He’s directed changes that have strengthened capital case standards, made the Supreme Court a “cert court” where it has discretion over most appeals and opened up the appellate courts’ doors to cameras and online live broadcasts during oral arguments. Shepard also co-created the Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity in 1997, and most recently in 2007, he co-chaired the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform with former Gov. Joe Kernan that led to the “Kernan-Shepard Report” on streamlining government.

“To say the justice system is stronger today because of Chief Justice Shepard’s three decades of dedication would be an understatement,” National Center for State Courts president Mary McQueen said. “He defined ‘justice’ not only for the citizens of Indiana and the United States – Chief Justice Shepard defined ‘justice’ for our generation.”

Before being appointed by Gov. Robert Orr to the state’s highest court, the Evansville native and seventh generation Hoosier served as a Vanderburgh Superior judge for five years. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1972, and after serving briefly as special assistant to the Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, he returned to Indiana and worked as chief assistant to Evansville’s mayor until he took the bench at age 33.

The Judicial Nominating Commission will be taking applications for his successor and conduct interviews in February, and the governor will choose from a submitted list of three names the person who will become Indiana’s 107th justice. Once Shepard retires, Justices Brent Dickson will serve as interim chief justice until the nominating commission chooses the next person.
 

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT