ILNews

Fort Wayne attorney dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Northeastern Indiana attorney known for his ability to quote literature died March 9 at the age of 53. Russell Strunk practiced litigation and employment law in Fort Wayne.

Strunk's former partners and an attorney with whom he recently shared office space remembered his love of literature and ability to quote from many authors, playwrights, and philosophers.

"He was a Shakespeare buff and quoted Shakespeare on occasion. He had a dramatic flair," said Mark Warsco, of Rothberg Logan and Warsco, who partnered with Strunk and Kate Brogan to form Warsco Brogan and Strunk in the 1990s.

Brogan, now of Eilbacher Fletcher, described him as a very well-read, literate person who was a great orator.

After leaving his firm in the late '90s, Strunk worked with Lincoln Financial for 10 years and recently began a professional association with the firm Holleran and Trexler.

"He was a brilliant attorney," said Brogan. "He was able to analyze a factual setting and make decisions on how to move the case toward whatever conclusion the law indicated would be supported, and he always knew how to do that."

Strunk grew up in Indianapolis and graduated from Indiana University School of Law in 1982. He is survived by his wife, Denise; son, Tyler; daughter, Kelly; brothers John Strunk, Mark Simon, and Glenn Simon; uncle Tom Strunk; and stepmother Marie Strunk.

A calling will be from 4 to 7 p.m. Friday at D.O. McComb & Sons Covington Knolls Funeral Home, 8325 Covington Road, Fort Wayne, with the service beginning at 7 p.m.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT