ILNews

Attorney’s death saddens legal community

Marilyn Odendahl
July 31, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

russell Russell

The Indianapolis legal community is mourning the sudden death July 16 of attorney Joe Russell.

He was a partner at Krieg DeVault LLP and was a well-known and respected member of the Indianapolis bar. His career included both private practice and public service, and he was active in several community and professional associations.

Ron Walker, of counsel at Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, described Russell’s death as “devastating.”

“The Indianapolis legal community has lost a real star,” Walker said. “This is the loss not only of a star but of an extraordinarily well-liked star.”

C. Joseph Russell graduated from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in 1980. Three years later, he was appointed to the post of assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. From 1985 to 1992, he served on the U.S. Justice Department’s Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force.

He joined Krieg DeVault as a partner in 2009 where he focused his practice on white collar criminal defense and complex litigation.

“We are deeply saddened by the unexpected loss of our beloved and valued friend and partner,” said Michael E. Williams, managing partner at Krieg DeVault. “The Krieg DeVault family, and those that had the good fortune of knowing and working with Joe, will greatly miss his friendship and professionalism. We appreciate everyone’s understanding and support.”

Outside of the office, Russell served in leadership capacities of the Hendricks County, Hamilton County and Indiana State bar associations as well as the American Bar Association and the Federal Bar Association. He was a member of the Indianapolis Bar Association, serving as president in 1999, and a distinguished fellow with the Indianapolis Bar Foundation.

“Joe was an absolute force in this organization,” said Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, current president of the Indianapolis Bar Association. “You would be hard pressed to find another leader in this organization’s 130-year history that had as much charisma, follow-through, and good common sense as Joe.”

At Blomquist’s request, Russell became chair of the Judicial Excellence Committee. She praised his incredible ethics, strength and straight-forward manner as providing invaluable leadership when the committee conducted judicial evaluations during election years.

“…I always appreciated his candor, humor and straight talk,” Blomquist said. “This loss to this legal community and this legal family is unimaginable.”

Walker got to know Russell through their work on the board of the Indianapolis Legal Aid Society. There, they both discovered they had each served in the U.S. Marines. Walker remembered that Russell would sometimes sign his name in emails as Lance Cpl. Russell.

Reflecting on their military experience, Walker noted the “Marines’ Hymn” includes lyrics about Marines guarding the streets of heaven.

“If that’s true,” Walker said, “Joe is out there on one of the streets in heaven taking care of traffic. I think he’d like that.”

Joe is survived by his wife, Elizabeth; son, Marc Russell; sister, Sara Edwards; and four nieces and nephews, Bryan and Kevin Beswick, and Bob and Meg Hammond.

His obituary describes him as a true patriot; a lover of history, especially all things dealing with the Civil War; and an avid hunter. He also never met a dog he did not like.•

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