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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT