ILNews

Lawyer lands winning in-house lottery job

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In-House Counsel

When Andrew Klinger decided to take a job as corporate counsel for a state agency, he was essentially playing the odds like someone buying a lottery ticket.

That was less than a year after being admitted to practice of law in Indiana, and it led to his eventually taking an in-house counsel position at the Hoosier Lottery, where he is now the top attorney.

“For someone who always thought I’d be a real estate attorney, how I got into gaming is still kind of a mystery to me,” said the 40-year old lawyer who’s been general counsel for the Hoosier Lottery since 2008, after four years working as a deputy general counsel at the Indiana Gaming Commission. “Some things are just lucky draws.”

Although Klinger had been interested for some time in pursing a legal career, he began working in economic development immediately after earning his undergraduate degree. The Fort Wayne native worked for several years in his hometown before moving to the Indiana Economic Development Commission and eventually deciding he was ready to start law school in 2001.
 

klinger Indianapolis attorney Andrew Klinger has served as general counsel for the Hoosier Lottery since 2008. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“I was always interested in pre-law, but sat back and thought I didn’t want to go straight in and didn’t know what I’d go into with a law degree. So, I went into real estate and economic development work and got a practical sense of what I’d do as an attorney with a degree,” Klinger said.

He graduated from Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis in 2004, and worked briefly as a contract attorney with an employment law attorney in Carmel. But before he agreed to start as an associate there, a new opportunity came his way.

“In the spring 2005, the Gaming Commission called out of the blue. I just kind of fell into this,” he said. “I took the chance.”

After a few years there as a deputy general counsel, Klinger said he was ready for the next step and found that at the Hoosier Lottery. There, he became the general counsel. This position is different in that he had several staff attorneys to work with at the Gaming Commission, while he’s the only attorney at the Lottery. That prior position was more regulatory, dealing with private casinos and their licenses, while this is a semi-government agency tasked with maximizing revenues through sales of lottery tickets.

Most of his daily duties include contract review and dealing with vendors and licensing issues, all through the lens of a government agency that must respect open meetings and access laws.

A self-sufficient quasi-public agency that isn’t connected to the state budget, the Hoosier Lottery raises its own revenue and pays its expenses from that. Klinger said about $791 million came in last year, with major expenses paid out for prizes and commissions to retailers and a small percentage on administrative costs. The rest goes back to the state – most recently the Hoosier Lottery put about $190 million into the budget to pay for teacher and public safety pensions and reduce state excise tax. Klinger said the Hoosier Lottery is working on spreading the word about the fiscal value it brings to the state, motivating people to buy tickets.

Litigation is a minimal part of his job, though he does oversee that as general counsel. Most of the legal claims go through the administrative procedures first and typically end up before an administrative law judge, and Klinger said he handles those cases personally.

“In large part, I shield the marketing and sales folk from the political aspect so they can focus on the sales tasks,” he said.

When Klinger started the job, he said the Hoosier Lottery had a large litigation docket that he spent most of his time focusing on. Now, only one lawsuit remains outstanding for the agency – a class-action lawsuit in Marion Superior Court involving two plaintiffs who sued the state lottery for thousands of dollars after they lost playing the Cash Blast game in 2005 and 2006 and claimed the lottery misstated the number and amount of prizes available. The men claimed they were misled by advertising that made the odds of winning seem greater than they were, and last year the Indiana Court of Appeals determined that suit can move forward at trial.

Despite it being such a small aspect of his work as general counsel, Klinger said it’s the litigation and administrative court claims he finds the most interesting. But he also enjoys handling the issues that take him back to his pre-law days, such as real estate and economic development.

The Hoosier Lottery recently moved into a new headquarters on North Meridian Street in Indianapolis and Klinger is proud of his work negotiating and finalizing that 10-year lease.

“That was a game changer for us, and really kept things interesting and took me back to those early days,” he said. “Some people think that working with the lottery is all fun and games… and it’s not, it really is a lot of work.”

While Klinger isn’t allowed to play the Hoosier Lottery, he usually tries to buy a lottery ticket out of state whenever he travels. Although he hasn’t won a jackpot to date, he considers himself lucky to have won the chance to be working where he is.

“In a corporate environment, you’re right there in the middle of everything,” he said. “This is always interesting and different, with something new coming your way, a lot different than what I understand firm life to be like. I’m glad this ticket came my way.”•

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