ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: Richard E. Shevitz

Partner, Cohen & Malad LLP, Indianapolis • Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, 1985

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
15col-Shevitz.jpg Richard E. Shevitz (IL photo/Eric Learned)

Richard E. Shevitz is a well-respected litigator known for his vigorous prosecution of complex litigation, including class actions. He recently took the lead in the litigation and settlement of a class action against the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles which resulted in a $30 million recovery; he’s also worked on antitrust cases here and in Iowa that resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries. Before joining Cohen & Malad, Richard was a deputy attorney general and assistant director of the Legal Affairs Department of the Anti-Defamation League. Opposing counsel calls him the “consummate lawyer,” vigorously representing his clients while maintaining a professional and courteous relationship with all parties involved.

How did you get involved in the Holocaust-related class-action litigation against Swiss banks and the prosecution of lawsuits against German industrial enterprises?

When the media first reported on the scandal of Swiss banks withholding the dormant bank accounts of Holocaust victims, we were contacted by local Holocaust survivors regarding potential claims to their family’s assets which had been missing since the end of World War II. We were also contacted by survivors in Indianapolis and Terre Haute who had not only been forced to work as slave laborers for German manufacturing enterprises during the war, but who also were subjected to inhumane medical experiments that Josef Mengele performed in Auschwitz working with German pharmaceutical companies. We joined together with lawyers from around the country in bringing a series of class-action lawsuits against the Swiss banks and a second series of class-action lawsuits against the German companies on behalf of these Holocaust survivors. The litigation and the settlement negotiations allowed me to work closely with some of the country’s most prominent lawyers as well as top government officials to achieve historic, multibillion-dollar international legal resolutions with significant political and moral dimensions.

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

Relax. Also, relax.

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

Working hard and working long hours are not always the same thing. Also, see answer to preceding question.

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

It provides tremendous satisfaction to obtain and distribute recoveries to people on claims that they would not have been able to pursue on an individual basis.

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

Yes. No. Well, all right – it is that moment that unfortunately still occurs all too often today when someone who I am trying to persuade to accept my view says, “Slow down, you are talking way too fast.”

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

Summer job as an unskilled laborer on a construction site in which my duties consisted solely of hand carrying I-beams that weighed more than I did at the time.

How has the area of litigation and class actions changed since you started practicing?

The substance hasn’t changed all that much but electronic discovery, e-filing and email, in particular, have revolutionized the way we do business.

What’s something about you not many people know?

I drink massive quantities of coffee each day in a regular water glass.

What civic cause is the most important to you?

Like many people, I am involved in various civic and community causes that matter to me personally. The most important cause, however, is simply to become engaged with the civic life of the community. Becoming engaged with causes that matter to us individually enriches our society and enriches us personally as well.

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

Although in theory the adversarial process is designed to yield the truth, in practice it often means that someone is trying to hide the truth…

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

The increased emphasis on civility has certainly heightened our awareness of this issue, but we all have a long way to go, especially now that our communications so often take place faster and less personally via email.

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

High school teacher

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

Atticus Finch

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

Tax

 

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