ILNews

Retired Indiana chief justice assures ND law students ‘it will turn out well’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Notre Dame law students received words of comfort and encouragement about their decision to become lawyers from an Indiana jurist who is leading a massive study of the cost and content of legal education.

Retired Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall Shepard delivered the Clynes Chair Lecture in the McCartan Courtroom Sept. 25 on the picturesque campus of the University of Notre Dame. Along with Dean Nell Jessup Newton, students and faculty attended the event.

In August 2012, Shepard was appointed chair of the American Bar Association’s Task Force on the Future of Legal Education. His speech at Notre Dame was his first public address about law schools since the task force issued its draft report on Sept. 20.   

“I want you know, I suspect if I were a law student at this time, I might harbor some question about whether I made the right choice and what my future might be like,” Shepard told the students. “I want you to know it is my conviction that society will continue to value capable lawyers; that we do well for ourselves and our families and for society in general. … You should regard yourselves as very fortunate at having the chance to make this decision. It will turn out well.”

The retired chief justice focused the bulk of his remarks on the findings of the task force.

He gave special emphasis to the rising cost of law school, noting to fully understand the causes and provide solutions, another committee will have to be convened specifically to study the financial issues.

Also, while he defended the current model of legal education as serving the country well, he proposed there might be a way to change the accreditation standards so that they empower law schools to innovate.

He also called for law schools to offer more information for consumers as a way to counteract the undue influence of U.S. News & World Report’s annual rankings.

After a student asked about the debate regarding the short-term and long-term outlook for lawyers, Shepard reiterated his belief that the law students made the right choice.

“I don’t doubt for a minute that there are valuable employment opportunities for most people who want to become a lawyer,” he said. “If you find yourself getting across a series of hurdles that law school and the bar exam present, you will more often than the critics say have the chance to be a lawyer somewhere doing something.”


 



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • All is not well
    Lest my "all things gay" comment below is misinterpreted, here is the late Chuck Colson, a prophet to our age, noting in 2008 that dark night for the faithful which our sea change in cultural mores was bringing on. http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Colson/Art_Sep08_Colson.html Christians, traditionalists, conservatives, constitutionalist make no mistake. There are those in the upper eschelon of governance who want you out of any power if you refuse to accept their progressivist disdain for the morality that built our social order. I have met these folks, up close and personal. I assure you that if they get their way many more will join me in career death and economic dissolution.
  • My heritage, my mentor
    And so, as can clearly be witnessed in this thread and in the referenced link below, it was demanded of me that I renounce my Lord, my Dad and my Christian heritage to become an Indiana attorney. I refused. The Indiana Supreme Court green lighted, their gender and race commission does not care of religious tests that are unconstitutional. And now the former Chief Justice assures the Catholic faithful that all is well. As the persecution now breaking across multiple professions reveals, all is far from well. Obamacare and political correctness doctrines and all things gay are rendering it very unwell, in fact.
  • Ind. injustice
    Any justice system that does not acknowledge a higher power than that of man himself is not worthy of being blessed by God and therefore in time will fail to serve man as a system of justice..
    • To be fair ...
      Actually my interrogator likely did not even know about the Social Kingship doctrine .... and to be fair the denial demanded of me was an offense against all revealed religion, but most importantly the very same order as a prior government decreed in Acts 5: "28 Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. 29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." I had no choice, based upon my Christian faith, but to answer as Peter did. For more details see the official transcript of my interrogation at the link below, App 75 -77. As Ogden's case, the "illegal immigrant" 30 day punishment, my case and many others reveal, political correctness threatens justice in the Hoosier state. Pray for relief, and put your prayers in action as you can.
    • Maybe OK
      Notre Dame grads, all should be A-OK unless you are asked to deny the Catholic doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, as I was, by agents of the Indiana judiciary. Most of you will not be, but if you have any pro-life activism on your application I very much recommend that you take a canon lawyer with you to any meetings with the IBLE. I certainly should have. Details here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109518279/Brownv-ind-S-ct-BoardLawExams

    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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    ADVERTISEMENT