ILNews

Muncie attorney is a 'Legendary Lawyer'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For Delaware Circuit Court Judge Marianne Vorhees, the memory is still vivid.

On one side was her mentor, attorney Frank Gilkison Jr., and on the other side was then-Henry Circuit Judge John Kellam, both arguing over what was and was not law in the state of Indiana.

They were heated and impassioned, going back and forth, voices rising, each insisting his view was right and the other’s was wrong.
 

gilkison-15col.jpg Frank Gilkison Jr. (IL Photo/ Jordan Huffer)

Vorhees, then a young attorney who had just started practicing at Gilkison’s firm, Beasley & Gilkison in Muncie, was stunned by the display, as well as a little scared. What happened next surprised her even more.

After the pair exhausted their fight – the judge won – both shook hands and laughed.

During his more than 60 years as a lawyer, Gilkison gained a reputation as one of the great litigators in Indiana. Gilkison used his trial skills to fight big battles, like those for county welfare workers and beer wholesalers, along with smaller disputes, like a personal injury claim for a woman hurt by falling glass or a farmer seeking restitution for cows made sick by contaminated feed.

Vorhees observed Gilkison’s lawyering skills during the argument with Kellam, but she also saw he was civil and respectful to his opponents. He was tenacious in the courtroom, but once outside he would smile and engage in friendly conversation with opposing counsel.

His professionalism and congeniality, along with his abilities and accomplishments as an attorney, have earned him special recognition from the Indiana legal community.

Gilkison, 87, has been named the 2014 Indiana Bar Foundation Legendary Lawyer. The award honors Hoosier attorneys who have built a legal career of 50 years or more that embodies the highest principles and traditions of the profession.

He is the first recipient of the award from Delaware County.

As others praise his legal work, Gilkison credits his career to the telephone. He was in the office to answer the phone when people needing help called.

One of those calls came in 1972 from the director of the Delaware County Welfare Department. The director was complaining about local welfare workers being paid less than their state counterparts.

Gilkison met with the director and then traveled to Indianapolis to talk to other county welfare workers. By the end of those conversations, he said, it was clear to him that the state had violated the law.

He represented the county workers all the way to the Indiana Court of Appeals in State of Indiana v. King, 413 N.E. 2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980). Gilkison successfully argued the salary schedule for the local welfare employees was separate and unequal to the schedule for state employees and, therefore, violated the State Personnel Act and Indiana Personnel Board Rule 4-2.gilikson-facts.jpg
A key hurdle in the class action was calculating the amount of back pay the welfare workers were owed. Throughout the litigation, the attorneys never knew the exact amount of money involved because, in those days before computers, even formulating an estimate was difficult.

The Indiana attorney general, at one point, called Gilkison and his co-counsel to a meeting in Indianapolis and presented its estimate that the state was liable for $30 million.

However, the attorney general never made a settlement offer. Instead, Gilkison called upon a Columbus company that had the computers to figure out the money owed. The final figure to compensate the thousands of employees who had been underpaid during a 15-year period was set at $18 million.

Gilkison believes that may have been his biggest case in terms of money, but his other cases were just as hard fought. There were times when he was surprised he won a particular case, he recalls, and other times he was surprised that he lost.

Always, colleagues said, Gilkison was prepared.

Attorney Robert Beasley, son of Gilkison’s law partner John Beasley, worked at the firm for 11 years. He described Gilkison as a student of the law and, when working on a case, he would identify the issue then very thoroughly research the matter. In court, Gilkison used this preparation to be a great advocate for his clients.

Those advocacy skills helped Gilkison win a case for a woman who suffered a long-term disability when a 14-foot wall of glassware in a retail store gave way and fell on her. After two years, the glass company agreed to settle for $14,000, but by that time Gilkison’s client was not interested.

Unsure how sympathetic a jury would be, Gilkison got testimony from doctors who described the woman’s continuing medical ailments and from her friends who talked about the woman’s inability to enjoy her favorite activities.

The jury returned a verdict for the woman for $107,000.

Outside the courtroom, Gilkison is just as competitive. Beasley recalled times he and his brothers would be playing basketball in their backyard and Gilkison, having come to his parents’ house for a cocktail party, would shed his sport coat and join the game.

Gilkison grew up in southwestern Indiana in Daviess County where he played on the high school basketball team and listened to his father’s stories from his law practice. His father, Frank Gilkison Sr., former justice on the Indiana Supreme Court, told his son the key to becoming a great trial lawyer was watching other attorneys in court and trying cases himself.

Since being admitted to the bar in 1950, Gilkison has honed his litigation techniques and, perhaps unknowingly, set an example for other attorneys to follow.

Judi Calhoun, chief deputy prosecutor in Delaware County and the president of Indiana Bar Foundation’s board of directors, never encountered Gilkison in the courtroom but she quickly learned of his reputation. She called him a classic, gentleman lawyer who is respectful to other attorneys, nice to clients and witnesses, and always professional.

Knowing the influence Gilkison has had, Calhoun nominated him for the legendary lawyer award. She highlighted his cases as well as his friendly demeanor that, she said, is often missing among today’s attorneys.

Fittingly, she notified Gilkison of his award with a phone call. The elder attorney, as he had been through much of his career, was near the telephone when it rang.

The award came as a surprise and has Gilkison feeling deeply honored. At the upcoming bar foundation reception, he plans to talk about some of the phone calls he received, the cases he handled and how being named a legendary lawyer is a great capstone to his career.•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT