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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT