ILNews

Services Sunday for longtime litigator Edgar Bayliff

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney Edgar Bayliff, former president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, died Jan. 4. He was 84.

Bayliff was admitted to practice in Indiana in 1954 and had been a member of the Kokomo firm Bayliff Harrigan Cord and Maugans for nearly 40 years. Beginning in the early 1970s, Bayliff helped lead a team of ITLA attorneys that lobbied against the passage of no-fault legislation. Because of those efforts, Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act was passed in 1983, resulting in sweeping changes to how juries award damages in Indiana. Micki Wilson, ITLA executive director, said, “Ed didn’t just practice law, he made law.”

In 1966, Bayliff served as president of ITLA.  Later in his career, the association honored him with the Trial Lawyer of the Year award and Lifetime Achievement Award. The ITLA also recognized him with the Hoosier Freedom Award; other recipients of that award have included the late Gov. Frank O’Bannon, Sen. Richard Lugar and Indiana Supreme Court Justice Randall Shepard. For many years, Bayliff served on the Board of Governors for the American Trial Lawyers Association. And in 1990, he received a Distinguished Service Award from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, his alma mater.

Bayliff was a United States Army veteran of World War II and the Korean War and was a member of Main Street United Methodist Church in Kokomo for more than 50 years.

He is survived by wife Betty Lou (Whitman) Bayliff; son Brad (Lisa) Bayliff of Austin, Texas; daughter Dixie (Jeff) McKean of Indianapolis; grandchildren Corby and Carly McKean and several nieces and nephews.

Visitation is 2 to 6 p.m. Sunday at Shirley and Stout Funeral Home, 1315 W. Lincoln Road, Kokomo, with a memorial service at 6 p.m.

Memorial contributions may be made to the Alzheimer’s Association of Greater Indiana or Main Street United Methodist Church, Kokomo.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT