ILNews

IndyBar: Interrogatories - Samantha DeWester

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Tyler D. Helmond, Voyles Zahn & Paul
 

dewester-samantha.jpg DeWester

Samantha DeWester, Office of Corporation Counsel

She is a graduate of Indiana University and the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. She is Deputy Corporation Counsel, City Prosecutor, and Public Access Counselor at the Office of Corporation Counsel. She was previously a Marion County Deputy Prosecutor and Marion County Deputy Public Defender. She is Samantha DeWester, and she has been served with interrogatories.


Q: What is your favorite memory from a Bench Bar Conference past?
A: What happens at Bench Bar, stays at Bench Bar. I can neither confirm nor deny if anything memorable happens at Bench Bar. Seriously, I have been attending Bench Bar since my first year of law school. It is always a great time! My favorite IndyBar CLE memory was in Las Vegas with Judge Bill Nelson a few years ago. While boarding the roller coaster on the roof of the New York New York hotel, Judge Nelson reminded us he was just released from the Heart Hospital weeks earlier!

Q: Who has had the biggest influence on your lawyering philosophy?
A: Johnnie Walker. Oh, an actual person. There is not just one person who has influenced or helped mold me into the lawyer I am today. Rather, it is a combination of watching, listening, learning and doing. You know it when you see the attorney you NEVER want to be. You have to be comfortable in your own skin, but also learn from mistakes you make and those of others.

Q: You have worked in and around the City-County Building (CCB) for most of your career. This is a three-part question. How would you describe the smell in the elevators? Where does it come from? And if you had to bottle it and sell it as perfume or cologne, what would you call it?
A: The warmer months are definitely worse than the cooler months, for both apparel and fragrance. I don’t know if I can assign words that give the CCB odors justice. It does not come from one source but instead is a combination of many things within the CCB.

Q: Choose a historical mock trial and appoint present-day lawyers and judge from the Indiana bar. How does it play out?
A: Since it is the 20th anniversary of the O.J. Simpson trial, I would say Scott Newman & Ralph Staples vs. Jim Voyles, Jack Crawford & Jenny Lukemeyer. Judge Sheila Carlisle presiding. Judge denies Jenny’s offer to reenact the Bronco chase around 465. Hung jury.

Q: What do you now know that you wish you knew at the beginning of your career?
A: Money really can buy you happiness…especially when you have massive law student loan payments and work for the government! Honestly, I love, love, love what I do and truly enjoy working for the great people of Indianapolis. I could not be happier and would not have it any other way!

Q: If you won the lottery tomorrow, what would you do and would you continue to use your lawyer skills/law degree?
A: Depends on the size of the pot! I would first take a much needed vacation/hiatus with friends and relax for a few months, somewhere far away! Then I would hire an attorney and investment broker to handle my winnings and take care of my future (see student loans in previous question). But, I would certainly continue to use my skills, whether philanthropic or legal, to help those around me.

Q: Reggie Miller or Peyton Manning?
A: Come on now….Reggie Miller. You don’t replace old with new!

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT