ILNews

IBA: Nod to Professionalism

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For serving as a role model of civility in litigation for countless attorneys in the Indianapolis area.  Bob Stanley, a partner at Baker & Daniels, first came up against “Eddie” Harris in the mid ‘80s.  As a young aggressive attorney, Stanley was struck that “here was someone who was able to advocate for his client without being threatening or belligerent.”  He decided then to model his lawyering on Harris’s.  At Taft Law, where Harris chairs the firm’s litigation section, he has instructed young attorneys that there are two ways to litigate.  “You can litigate to litigate, or you can litigate to resolve.”  Harris has invariably elected the latter.
 

Harris Ed Harris

A 1967 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, Harris served as a teaching fellow at Stanford Law School for one year before joining Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, one of the predecessors of Barnes & Thornburg.  Harris joined Sommer & Barnard in 1973, which became part of Taft Law in 2008.  He has chaired the Indianapolis office’s litigation group for more than twenty years.

IBA PROFESSIONALISM STANDARD No. 4

        We will at all times act with dignity, civility, decency and courtesy in all professional activities and will refrain from rude, disruptive, disrespectful, obstructive and abusive behavior.

If you know of someone whom you believe exemplifies one of IBA’s five standards, please e-mail your nomination to iba@indybar.org.

ADVERTISEMENT

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