ILNews

Judicial Center education director to retire

Michael W. Hoskins
April 13, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The longtime education director for the Indiana Judicial Center is retiring at the end of April, capping a career that's given her the chance to develop and put in place countless instructive programs for the state's judiciary.

Cathy Springer, who began serving the state's judicial branch in February 1980, will retire on April 30.

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard praised her three-decade-long service, saying she has been a teacher to hundreds of Indiana judges.

"Her remarkable commitment to the finest possible educational programming has meant that the millions of Indiana citizens who come to court have received better justice," the chief justice said in a statement.

During her career, Springer has been a part of the judicial center team that's coordinated bench-bar conferences and various judicial education programs, including the Indiana Mentor Judge Program in the 1990s that pairs seasoned jurists with those just taking the bench. She has been a member of the National Association of State Judicial Educators and was involved in a standards committee project, which led to publication of the "Principles and Standards of Judicial Branch Education" that guides judicial curriculum development and educational policy.

In 2005, Springer taught at the Leadership Institute of Judicial Education at the University of Memphis. That allowed her to help teach a program that focused on experiential learning, adult education principles, lifespan development, intellectual and ethical development, and personal development as a means for change. She's also served on the advisory boards for the Leadership Institute and Institute for Faculty Excellence in Judicial Education.

"I have truly enjoyed working in this field - it has been a career of a lifetime," Springer said in a news release. "I sincerely appreciate all of the support and the life lessons I have learned over the years and the valuable friendships I have made."

Springer plans to spend more time with family and friends, traveling, and consulting in the adult education field. The Indiana Judicial Center has launched a search for her successor.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT