ILNews

Shepard named to academic post

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard has been named the first executive in residence at the Indiana University Public Policy Institute in IU's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. The appointment also includes a relationship with the IU Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

As executive in residence, Shepard will work with the PPI to find ways that nonpartisan research and data can help leaders understand the challenges and opportunities of the future. During his two-year joint academic appointment with SPEA and the law school, Shepard will lead executive seminars and mentor faculty and staff as they develop academic programs focused on the relationship between law and public policy.

“When I decided to leave the bench, it was with the hope that I could find new opportunities to contribute in a meaningful way, and my appointment with PPI certainly fits the bill,” Shepard said. “I find it attractive as a combination of public policy exploration that’s anchored in rigorous academic enterprise and focused on engaging audiences beyond the university who are charged with leading public institutions.”

Shepard has co-chaired two recent projects for PPI: Policy Choices for Indiana’s Future, which provides policy guidance for Indiana officials and candidates for office; and the Indiana Commission on Local Government Reform, which was formed by Gov. Mitch Daniels and staffed by PPI.

“The chief justice’s years as leader of one branch of Indiana government have prepared him to be an expert resource and mentor for the work we do at the IU Public Policy Institute,” said institute Director John L. Krauss. “We are gratified and pleased that he has chosen to give us the benefit of his knowledge and experience and to use the institute as a forum through which he can continue to help shape Indiana's future. And his past work with PPI ensures that he will hit the ground running.”


 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT