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

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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT