Mr. William Bock, III

Mr. William Bock, III: Attorney with Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP
  • Partner at Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP (19 Attorneys)
  • 111 Monument Circle, Suite 900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-5106
    View Mr. William Bock, III's office location
  • William Bock III is a partner with Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP. He concentrates his practice in the areas of Sports Law and Litigation, Arbitration, Complex Litigation, Government and Election Law
  • Peer Reviews

    4.4/5.0 (4)
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
    • #137 in weekly profile views out of 7,517 Attorneys in Indianapolis, IN
    • #45,940 in weekly profile views out of 1,822,356 total attorneys Overall
Attorney Awards

Biography

Bill Bock has represented clients in high profile investigations, litigation and arbitration throughout the United States. Bill has a strong interest in business and sports ethics, sports drug testing and athletic eligibility issues.

Bill was the lead attorney for the United States Anti-Doping Agency(USADA) in the investigation of the use of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and other members of the United States Postal Service Cycling Team. Bill interviewed each of USADA’s cyclist witnesses, represented USADA in court proceedings brought by Armstrong in Austin, Texas, and was the principal author of USADA’s 200 page Reasoned Decision setting forth the evidence against Mr. Armstrong. For his work on the Armstrong case Bill was named a 2012 Lawyer of the Year by Law Week Colorado.


Since 2007 Bill has served as General Counsel to USADA located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. USADA is the independent entity charged with the responsibility to investigate and prosecute instances of drug use in Olympic and Paralympic sports by U.S. athletes, (www.usada.org), and Bill has direct responsibility for USADA’s investigations and prosecutions. Bill was heavily involved in USADA’s investigation of the BALCO doping conspiracy and was interviewed for and quoted in the best selling book, Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports.


In 2009 Bill was appointed by the international swimming federation, the Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, (www.fina.org), to serve as one of six (6) international arbitrators on the FINA Doping Panel which adjudicates sports doping matters involving international swimmers. Bill has served on multiple arbitration panels for FINA and attended the World Swimming Championships in 2010 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (short course) and in 2011 in Shanghai, China, as a member of the FINA Doping Panel.


In addition, Bill has:


• Handled cases before the Indiana Supreme Court, the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Sixth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals and State and/or Federal courts in Indiana, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Texas and California;
• Handled election disputes, recounts, and election contests before trial courts, the Indiana Election Commission and the Indiana Recount Commission;
• Appeared before panels of the American Arbitration Association and the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, in more than fifty (50+) sports eligibility disputes;
• Handled matters involving athletic eligibility before many national governing bodies and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Bill has also developed expertise in the specialized areas of government defense, constitutional law, voting rights and election law. He has defended and advised entities of local government in Voting Rights Act, political firing and constitutional and redistricting cases and has represented clients in recounts, election contests, and election boundary disputes before the Indiana Election Commission and Indiana Recount Commission. He has handled a number of matters involving compliance of voting systems with state and federal law and has represented counties in negotiations with their election services vendors. He has also served as special redistricting counsel to the Indiana House Republican Caucuses in 2000 and 2010, to the Indianapolis City-County Council in 2002 and to other units of government.


Since 2000 Bill has handled six (6) recounts and/or election contests involving the election of state legislators from districts throughout Indiana. Bill’s clients have been successful in every recount or election contest he has defended before the Indiana Recount Commission. In 2007 Bill successfully defended a state legislator in a post election challenge to his residency that was brought in Porter County Superior Court. In 2006 Bill obtained a trial court judgment overturning the Boone County Election Board’s refusal to accept a candidate’s filing for local office.


Bill is familiar with the intricate rules applicable to entities of state and local government and has regularly been hired by municipalities, legislative bodies, county election boards, state agencies and other elected officials to provide advice and handle litigation on their behalf. Recent cases of note in which Bill has been involved include his representation of the City of East Chicago in multiple lawsuits before the Indiana Supreme Court in 2009 and 2010 concerning the City’s entitlement to revenues under the economic development agreement with the East Chicago riverboat. Foundations of East Chicago, Inc. v. City of East Chicago, 927 N.E.2d 900, 2010 WL 1979159, (Ind. 2010); City of East Chicago, Indiana v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., 908 N.E.2d 611 (Ind. 2009); and Zoeller v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., 904 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2009).


Bill has also successfully handled numerous political firing cases and other employment disputes for municipalities. In Skrundz v. Pabey,2009 WL 1704687 (N.D.Ind. 2009), Bill obtained a judgment on the evidence in his client’s favor following a four day jury trial in a political firing case. Other political discharge cases in which Bill was involved are identified below in a listing of representative cases.


During 2004 through 2006 Bill served as Parliamentarian of the Indiana House of Representatives in which capacity he advised the Speaker of the House on legal and parliamentary issues. As Parliamentarian Bill also provided oversight on legal matters involving the House, including litigation brought concerning Indiana’s photo identification law and a challenge to the practice of legislative prayers.

Areas of Practice (5)

  • Sports Law and Litigation
  • Business Litigation
  • Municipal and Election Law
  • Appellate Practice
  • Employment Law

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
317-667-0751  Phone
317-777-7412  Phone
317-264-6824  Fax
www.kgrlaw.com
www.linkedin.com/in/william-bock-73850627
University Attended:
Oral Roberts University, B.A., Summa Cum Laude, 1985
Law School Attended:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, J.D., Cum Laude, 1989
Year of First Admission:
1989
Admission:
1989, Indiana; United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida; Colorado; 1989, U.S. District Court, Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana
Memberships:
Indianapolis (Past Chairman, Sports and Entertainment Section), Indiana State and American (Member, Sections on: Sports and Entertainment; State and Local Government; Employment Law) Bar Associations; Sports Lawyers Association; Christian Legal Society; Federalist Society.
Special Agencies:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS); American Arbitration Association (AAA); Indiana Election Commission; Indiana Gaming Commission.
Reported Cases:
Federal: Armstrong v. Tygart, —F.Supp.2d—, 2012 WL 3569682 (W.D.Tex. 2012);Graham v. U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 2011 WL 1261321 (E.D.N.C. 2011); Dado v. Pabey, 2011 WL 854908 (N.D. Ind. 2011)
U.S. S.E.C. v. Payne, 2011 WL 693604 (S.D. Ind. 2011); Skrundz v. Pabey, 2009 WL 1704687 (N.D. Ind. 2009); Camacho v. City of East Chicago, 2008 WL 4809625 (N.D. Ind. 2008); Camacho v. Pabey, 2008 WL 2990683 (N.D. Ind. 2008); U.S. v. Graham, 555 F.Supp.2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Gatlin v. U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 2008 WL 2567657 (N.D. Fla. 2008); Cieminski v. Flaugher, 2008 WL 482579 (S.D. Ohio 2008); Dillard v. Marion County Election Bd., 2008 WL 187531 (S.D. Ind. 2008); Austin-Ridle v. Pabey, 2007 WL 4355857 (N.D. Ind. 2007); Carr v. City of East Chicago, Ind., 2007 WL 4287570 (N.D. Ind. 2007); Kollintzas v. Pabey, 2007 WL 4277912, (N.D. Ind. 2007); Sanders v. City of East Chicago, Ind., 2007 WL 3505307 (N.D. Ind. 2007); DeLaCruz v. Pabey, 2007 WL 3102143 (N.D. Ind. 2007)
Ramos v. Pabey, 628 F.Supp.2d 895, (N.D. Ind. 2007);
State:
Foundations of East Chicago, Inc. v. City of East Chicago, 927 N.E.2d 900, 2010 WL 1979159 (Ind. 2010);
Lees Inns of America, Inc. v. William R. Lee Irrevocable Trust, 924 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010);
City of East Chicago, Indiana v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., 908 N.E.2d 611 (Ind. 2009);
Foundations of East Chicago, Inc. v. City of East Chicago, 905 N.E.2d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)
Zoeller v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., 904 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 2009)
Carter v. City of East Chicago, 881 N.E.2d 1114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
Peters v. Sutton, 878 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc., 878 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
ISLN:
908951374
Payment Information:
  • Credit cards accepted
  • Accepts Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and Other
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Fixed Fees Available

Peer Reviews

Indianapolis, Indiana

Contact Mr. William Bock, III

Required Fields

Required Fields


By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.