ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: Henry J. Price

Principal member, Price Waicukauski & Riley LLC, Indianapolis • University of Michigan Law School, 1962

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
15col-Price.jpg Henry J. Price (Submitted photo)

During the more than 50 years Henry J. Price has been practicing law, he has earned a reputation as one of the best and smartest trial lawyers in Indiana with a spirit and style all his own. He started his career with Barnes & Thornburg LLP, where he represented defendants for 22 years, but then decided to switch to the plaintiff’s side. Henry started Price Waicukauski & Riley in 1985, where he has successfully litigated class actions and other cases in Indiana and across the nation.

Your decision to buy and renovate a building on Massachusetts Avenue in downtown Indianapolis nearly 30 years ago helped spur a renaissance of the area. What’s the best thing about being in the Mass Ave area?

Having seen it change and prosper is the most rewarding. The best thing is having been involved in starting the change and being privileged to practice in an Indianapolis landmark building.

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

Perry Mason. His books motivated me to go to law school and specialize in trial work. My masters program at Georgetown that involved defending those accused of crime in the D.C. courts demonstrated that was not the area for me.

If you couldn’t be a lawyer, what would you do for a living?

I would be an actor, stage or screen.

Is there a moment in your career you wish you could do over?

I had a scholarship to Pasadena Playhouse upon graduation from high school. I wish I could have afforded to take it instead of working at the International Harvester to make money for college. That would have been great.

What civic cause is the most important to you?

I have been part of and supported the Civil Liberties Union, state and national, for all of my time in practice. In the current climate in Washington, the need is even greater.

Is there any case or moment that stands out from your time as an attorney with the ACLU of Indiana? 

The successful challenge to the state’s ban on the (Indiana Civil Liberties Union) using the Indiana War Memorial auditorium for a presentation on freedom of speech. This originated in the 1950s when the Communist witch hunt engineered by Sen. McCarthy was in full swing and resulted in the denial of the use of this tax-supported building for this event. It took us two decades to challenge it, and I argued the case where we won in the Indiana Supreme Court. We celebrated with a meeting featuring Mick Wallace, Bill Buckley and Fred Friendly, who was the producer for the Edward R. Murrow “See it Now” program which had featured this story in the 1950s. I moderated the panel. It was the exciting culmination of a long fight.

How has litigation changed since you started?

It changed from a civilized practice to one dominated by delay and lack of civility. With the help of the judiciary it is now changing back.

What are some tips for achieving a work/life balance?

Play as hard as you practice.

You’ve been practicing law for 50 years. What legal skills or traditions have faded away over the years that you would like to see return?

As I said, civility and honesty among adversaries faded; but it has been coming back for the last five to 10 years.

Why do you practice in the area of law that you do?

Trial work is the most challenging, exciting and rewarding practice there is.

What class do you wish you could have skipped in law school?

I always hated tax.

What’s something you’ve learned over the years that you wish you could go back in time and tell your younger self?

Take more time with and devote more energy to your family.

What was the worst or most memorable job you had prior to becoming an attorney?

Working on the assembly line at the International Harvester plant in Fort Wayne was the worst.
 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT