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
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.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.