ILNews

Leadership in Law 2013: Sarah B. Dauer

In-house counsel, Shoe Carnival Inc., Evansville University of Tulsa College of Law

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

dauer-sarah3-15col.jpg (IL Photo/DIA Photography, David Greene)

When Sarah B. Dauer relocated to Evansville to work for Shoe Carnival Inc., she immediately contacted the Evansville Bar Association asking to join and how she can be involved. She’s become a regular attendee and brought other young attorneys to EBA events. A colleague describes her as one of the finest leaders and young professionals he’s yet observed in a legal capacity or otherwise. When Shoe Carnival’s senior vice president and in-house counsel was away for six months in 2011, Sarah carried sole responsibility for legal support for the company. Sarah is a former commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force.

If you could take a sabbatical from the law for a year to work your fantasy job, what job would you choose?  
I have my dream job. I love the law! I could, however, be persuaded to work from a backpack while globe trekking.

What civic cause is the most important to you?  
Respect for life – to end abuse of children, animals, each other, ourselves. To increase our respect for all life and appreciate the necessity of others’ well-being to our own.

What’s the most important thing your mentor has taught you?  
To “[d]well in Possibility….” (Emily Dickinson).

If a drink or sandwich were to be named after you, what would it be called and what would be in it?
It’d be a bourbon and coke – caffeinated, bubbly and a little rough around the edges.

If you could pick a theme song to describe your life, what would it be? 
“Paradise” by Coldplay.

If you could go back in time, “when” would you go to and what would you do?
I would go back to yesterday and get more rest!

Would a world without 24/7 technology be a good or bad thing?
Both. Work with what you’ve got!

What class in law school did you find the most difficult?  
Jurisprudence. A background in philosophy was a pre-req for success, and I didn’t have one.

ADVERTISEMENT

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