ILNews

Attorney, ex-appellate clerk dies suddenly

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A Fort Wayne and Indianapolis health-care law attorney who'd previously served as the governor's counsel and as state appellate clerk in the 1990s died suddenly Tuesday night.

John Okeson, 43, died at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne after suffering from a short flu-like illness during the past week; he was admitted to the hospital late Sunday or Monday, according to his legal colleagues. The county coroner's office told media that Okeson had been sick and admitted to the hospital, where staff determined he had a serious sepsis-like condition of unknown origin.

His legal colleagues say the news shocked them particularly because Okeson was known as one of the healthiest people around, running regularly and competing in triathlons and swimming.

The Fort Wayne native graduated from Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis in 1989, going to work as an associate at the Fort Wayne office of Baker & Daniels. He later left to successfully run for the statewide position of clerk of the appellate courts, which at the time was an elected position.

Current Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith said he didn't know Okeson well, but his staff pointed out that Okeson restored dignity to the office in the 1990s, uplifted morale, and gave the public the ability to trust and have confidence in the clerk's office.

"My employees saw John as a forward-thinking man, studying the functions ... and making improvements, particularly in record-keeping by streamlining the records department and saving money," Smith wrote in an e-mail. "The clerk's office feels that the people of the state of Indiana have lost one of their best and brightest."

After a single term, Okeson returned to Baker & Daniels and became a partner practicing health-care law before returning to public service in 2005 for Gov. Mitch Daniels. He served as counsel to the Family and Social Services Administration. Okeson then worked as the governor's chief legislative counsel for almost two years during which he worked on issues such as a health insurance program for the working poor and the Indiana Toll Road lease.

In October 2007, Okeson returned to private practice with Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman.

"John was an excellent lawyer with great experience in the public and private sectors, and his skill set fit well with what we do," said William Thompson with Hall Render. "He was such a joy to be around."

Despite his work in Indianapolis, though, Okeson continued living in Fort Wayne. Colleagues recalled how he'd drive back and forth repeatedly to be close to his three children.

In a statement released Wednesday, the governor said, "John Okeson taught and improved everyone around him, no more so than me. His wisdom, calmness under pressure, and the trust and good will he enjoyed on both sides of the aisle were things I'll always remember. But most of all, he was a father. All the 12- and 14-hour days he finished by driving north just to be with his kids in the morning - that's what I'll remember most."

Born Nov. 7, 1964, in Fort Wayne, he was a member of Trinity English Lutheran Church. Surviving are his son, Kale Okeson; daughters, Erin Okeson and Abbey Okeson; mother, Mary Elizabeth "Betty" Okeson; brothers, David J. (Kristie) Okeson and Paul S. (Michelle) Okeson; and former spouse, Ellen Okeson.

Visitation will be from 2 to 4 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m. Friday at Trinity English Lutheran Church, 405 W. Wayne St., Fort Wayne; the funeral is 1 p.m. Saturday at the church. Memorial contributions may be made to Trinity English Lutheran Church or Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.
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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT