ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: Brianna J. Schroeder

Associate, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, Indianapolis • Valparaiso University Law School, 2009

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

15col-Schroeder.jpg Brianna J. Schroeder (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

Brianna J. Schroeder is a self-described farm girl whose put those skills to use in her practice, which includes agricultural and environmental law. She did the heavy lifting on a Right to Farm Act case that has become the leading Indiana decision on the subject. She also currently serves as secretary-treasurer for the Indiana State Bar Association’s Agricultural Law Section. Brianna remains active with her alma mater, serving as the vice-president of the Central Indiana Valparaiso Law School Alumni Council, in which she hopes to bring alumni and current law students closer socially and professionally.

You’ve worked in Peru, visited Israel while in law school, and have traveled to many other countries. How many stamps are in your passport, and what is it that you love about traveling?

Funny thing is that right now, the only stamp in my passport is a Russian visa from a trip to Moscow and Saint Petersburg this winter with my fiancé. I had to renew my passport and start over on stamps. I love going to new places, especially places that are very different from my everyday life. Russia definitely qualified – I recommend visiting!

You’d like to eventually teach, possibly high school civics classes. Why is civics education important?

I think students need a basic understanding of our governmental structure. It teaches why voting is important, how our leaders are chosen, what roles are played by each part of the government, and so many other fundamentals. Civics likely seems elementary to lawyers, but many high school students have a hard time explaining the difference between the branches of government.

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

Elle Woods – you don’t have to change who you are to be an effective lawyer.

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

I worked as a bookie for a (legal) greyhound racing track in college. It is no longer in business.

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

Don’t give up your pre-law hobbies or friends. Take time out from your practice to develop your other interests. I love the time I spend playing sand volleyball, reading and traveling.

Why practice in the area of law that you do?

Environmental law is constantly changing. That and the interplay of federal, state and local laws keeps me on my toes. I also love my agricultural work, because I grew up on a family farm.

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

John Adams. His defense of the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre while the city was on edge was such a courageous move and showed the importance of legal counsel for the accused.

What’s your guilty pleasure?

Turning my cell phone off and getting lost in a historical biography with a glass or two of red wine.

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

So many people don’t actually know any lawyers except those in movies and television. Crazy lawyers make for good entertainment but don’t accurately depict the vast majority of attorneys I know.

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

I don’t know what class I wish I could have skipped, but I wish I had taken an environmental law class.

What is the most important lesson you learned from your mentor?

Be ready and willing to embrace new opportunities. Even if it isn’t what you thought your next step would be, be ready for whatever comes next! Take chances and try new things. You’re more likely to regret passing up an opportunity than you are to regret seizing the chance to do something new.

What’s something about you not many people know?

I twirled baton for about 10 years. It was not my best look.
 

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
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