ILNews

IndyBar: Memories Of Joe Russell

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While still shocked from Joe’s death, having spent the day before and the morning of his death with him, I am trying to adjust my own perception of life based on Joe’s premature departure. 

Enjoy each day as it comes, take time to appreciate each day, and take the time with friends and family.  End each day with laughs to relieve ourselves of our stresses.  Joe and I had that in common and I appreciate it even more now that he is gone.

Joe loved the practice of law.  We spent a wonderful two weeks together, with Denny Zahn, trying a federal wildlife case in South Bend before Judge Sharpe.  The best thing that happened was after the case when our client provided us each a large container of deer sausage.  Joe declared it the best he had ever had even though I doubted he was a true connoisseur of deer meat.  Immediately preceding his death, we started work on a new matter together.  Just knowing we were back together as co-counsels brought a smile to my face.  It also gave me confidence that we would work well together all the while having a good time in what we both loved so much – the practice of law.

I will miss Joe and will be reminded of him as I proceed on this new matter without him.  I will constantly be thinking “what would Joe do” on the case.  I will definitely wonder “what would Joe say…” that would be consistent with his cynical sense of humor that always made me laugh.•

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. 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