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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT