ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: John C. Render

Shareholder, Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman P.C., Indianapolis • Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, 1971

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
15col-Render.jpg John C. Render (Submitted photo)

If asked to name Indiana’s premiere health care attorneys, the name John C. Render is among those that top the list. John has been instrumental not only in the growth of the law firm that bears his name, but also in the development of local health care law and regulations. He spent 32 years as general counsel to the Indiana Hospital Association and was an adjunct instructor at Indiana University for more than two decades in its graduate program in health care administration. Students remember him as an influential instructor who was funny, had great stories and taught them a lot about the law. In fact, current Hall Render chairman William H. Thompson, a former student of John’s, was so influenced by him that he went to law school specifically to practice health care law.

If you couldn’t be a lawyer, what would you do for a living?

I probably would have taught. I started life as a high school English teacher and went to law school at night.

What was the worst or most memorable job you had prior to becoming an attorney?

I worked in the steel mills in Lake County for a time between a couple semesters of college. It reinforced in my mind that I didn’t want to do manual labor for the rest of my life. I wanted to earn a living with my mind and not my back.

Why do you practice in the area of law that you do?

Happenstance. I was in law school and I was teaching. One summer a friend went to work for the Indiana Hospital Association, called me up and said, “We are looking for someone.” They hired me for the summer. The next summer they called me back. I met their general counsel, and we got to know each other the second year. The president of the association and Mr. William Hall said, “We’d like you to stay here, and if you stay you can work for the Hospital Association and work with Mr. Hall in a clerkship situation.” I thought about it for five seconds, so I resigned from teaching and started working for the Hospital Association. When I graduated and passed the bar we started Hall Render in 1971.

How has health care law changed since you started?

It’s become an enormous industry. When I started it was a lot of hospitals, but it’s become such a multibillion-dollar industry in terms of both organizational aspects and demand for service. As more people are covered by insurance and public programs, demand has escalated. That, in turn, has grown our clients enormously, and as they have grown, we have grown, too.

What’s been the biggest change in the overall practice of law you’ve seen since you began?

One of the bigger changes is the proliferation of advertising with regard to trying to get clients. I am not convinced that it’s the right way to choose legal counsel or choose a cardiovascular surgeon because he has a billboard on (Interstate) 465. Law, medicine, all professions need to do a better job of informing the public about the people who are available to do work and provide services, their professional qualifications, etc. But I don’t think the professionals themselves are the best to provide that information. We all have a tendency to overstate our qualifications and talents. Me advertising on Lucas Oil Stadium does not make me the right lawyer to solve a problem.

We hear a lot about civility. Have you noticed a change in how attorneys treat each other since you began practicing?

It’s changed. I’m not sure if it’s a product of the profession or byproduct of society. I really think advertising has contributed to this. It has demeaned the profession in my mind, made us look like hucksters. There was a time when law and medicine were looked at as upstanding ethical professions. I think we still have those standards, but societal and other changes in the bar have caused a reduction in both civility and collegiality. I’m a believer that you can be collegial and can work with opponents and still zealously represent your clients. One thing I’ve learned and most lawyers will tell this, if you treat your opponents and their clients with courtesy and respect and still do the job vigorously, that client sometimes down the line will hire you. If answer is too long for print, cut highlighted section.

Why do you think people often have negative stereotypes about lawyers?

One of the major reasons is people come to lawyers mostly in situations of great trauma – personal or business distress, divorce, being sued, having criminal charge. If it doesn’t go right or they don’t get the right result, or think the lawyer charged too much or did too little, there can be a lot of negative feelings about that. You’ve got to be very effective and empathetic in dealing with people when they have legal problems. You may have seen this problem 50 times before, but it’s the most important thing in their life.


What’s something about you not many people know?

I like to occasionally bake things, mostly pies. One of my grandmothers, in an attempt to have me spend time with her as a little kid, taught me to bake pies.

What are some tips for achieving a work/life balance?

Whatever time you spend at the office, when you leave the office, don’t take it with you. I think when you leave, leave; and when you come back, do your work there. Whatever number of hours you put into the practice of law, you can fill. There is always something to do. If you want to put in 18 hours, there’s something to do.

What civic cause is the most important to you?

I admire certain charities a great deal like Salvation Army and St. Vincent DePaul and charities that minister to the poor.

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

Jake Brigance in “A Time to Kill.”

You’ve written many law review articles and contributed to papers on medical-legal subjects. What do you enjoy about writing?

I think it’s the component of teaching and scholarship. I’ve always enjoyed that kind of thing.

What’s something you’ve learned over the years that you wish you could go back in time and tell your younger self?

I would tell my younger self in high school and early college to be much more focused on academics and so forth. I was a good student, but I was just fortunate to be smart enough.

What class do you wish you could have skipped in law school?

Trust and estates and future interests. I never enjoyed that.

Is there a moment in your career you wish you could do over?

I’ve really enjoyed health law. I tell young people if you can find something to do that you really enjoy and make a living out of it, like I’ve been fortunate to do, your life is going to largely be very happy. I kind of wish I had been academically more focused early one, both college and law school, and been able to concentrate more on my studies. I, like a lot of people in both college and law school, had to work, so I never really felt like I had the full college experience, so to speak.

 

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT