ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: Darren A. Craig

Member, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis • Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 2004

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

15col-Craig.jpg Darren A. Craig (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

Darren A. Craig might as well remove the door from his office because he rarely has a chance to close it, thanks to the frequent visitors he receives. Colleagues – both new and seasoned attorneys – often come to Darren for advice. In fact, just five years after joining Frost Brown Todd, he was recognized as Mentor of the Year in 2010.

Darren has realized significant professional success in his first decade of practice; he’s participated in drafting more than 30 appellate briefs and presented oral arguments to the Indiana and 7th Circuit courts of appeals. In 2012, Darren became an adjunct professor teaching contract drafting at IU McKinney School of Law. He also serves as board secretary for The Cheer Guild of Riley Hospital for Children and Indiana University Hospital Inc., and for the past five years has written the moot court problem for the Federal Bar Association’s Thurgood Marshall Memorial Moot Court Competition.

Why do you serve as a mentor to new attorneys?

The best legal education I received was individual guidance from experienced lawyers and judges. I want to contribute to that educational tradition, which is essential in all law firms and for the legal profession.

And speaking of mentoring, what is the most important lesson you learned from your mentor?

The importance of understanding your client’s business and how the legal issue you are working on affects the business as a whole.

What was the worst or most memorable job you had prior to becoming an attorney?

My most memorable job was working for the educational publisher CTB/McGraw-Hill. I worked with CTB editors and state departments of education to develop guidelines for standardized tests. It has given me some perspective on the current controversies over school rankings.

What are some tips for achieving a work/life balance?

Do first what you dread most. Letting unpleasant tasks go unfinished destroys productivity and lessens enjoyment of free time.

You’ve been a volunteer judge for the Indiana Mock Trial Competition for several years. Why is civic education important?

People are more likely to participate in their government and to respect the rule of law if they understand the law.

What’s something about you not many people know?

I can juggle.

If you could meet and spend the day with one lawyer from history, who would it be and why?

John Marshall. His judicial opinions were essential to making the judiciary a co-equal branch of government and to validating the authority of the national government.

What class do you wish you could have skipped in law school?

Only first-year courses were forced upon me. Of those, torts was probably the most dispensable, because the content of the course bore little relation to its title.

Why practice in the area of law that you do?

I enjoy learning about how businesses work and helping to solve business problems.

What’s your guilty pleasure?

Strawberry pie from Gray Brothers Cafeteria.

Why do you think people often have negative stereotypes about lawyers?

Because lawyers advocate for clients, what position a lawyer takes on a legal question depends upon who hires the lawyer. Many people believe that all issues have a right answer and a wrong answer and, therefore, believe that lawyers’ ability to advocate for different answers reflects cynicism or lack of moral certainty.

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

Henry Drummond from “Inherit the Wind.”

If you couldn’t be a lawyer, what would you do for a living?

English teacher.




 

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT