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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT