ILNews

Leadership in Law 2014: Carly A. Brandenburg

Income partner, Eichhorn & Eichhorn LLP, Hammond • Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 2007

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 

15col-Brandenburg.jpg Carly A. Brandenburg (Photo/ Pete Doherty, Doherty Images LLC)

Because of her poise and easy nature, clients and other attorneys are quick to place their trust in Carly Brandenburg, whose practice areas include medical and legal malpractice defense. Licensed in Indiana and Illinois, Carly has gained substantial trial experience during her seven years in the law and has participated in numerous arbitration and mediation proceedings in both states. She is an advocate and willing adviser to young associates at the firm. Carly has led Eichhorn & Eichhorn’s food drive for the last two years as part of the March Against Hunger campaign, is a valued Junior Achievement volunteer, and has provided pro bono work for a local animal rescue group.

Why practice in the area of law that you do?

In law school I gravitated toward litigation and trial practice following wonderful experiences I had with the deputy prosecutor in Owen County, Bob Andree. Now that I’m practicing civil litigation, I don’t think I could get as excited about other work. I love the rush that comes from presenting arguments at a hearing or conducting voir dire to select a jury. I’ve been fortunate enough to get to try six jury trials and many bench and small claims trials, and I can’t imagine that it could ever get old.

What’s something about you not many people know?

I have been snow skiing since I was about 2 years old. This past winter my 2-year-old daughter, Fiona, skied for the first time on the very same set of skis! Thirty years later, and they were still perfect!

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

My best job ever – perhaps not just prior to becoming a lawyer – was when I worked on air and behind the scenes at the “Good Morning Vail” television show in Vail, Colo. Though I was working for college credit at DePauw rather than for pay, my volunteer status earned me the right to ski for free. I must have skied my weight in gold.

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

Listen more than you speak, particularly with your clients. They are experts in their fields and areas of business. You can miss important details if you’re more focused on demonstrating your own acumen than you are about hearing and understanding someone else’s problems.

You’re licensed in Indiana and Illinois. Is there much of a difference between the tests?

While the tests are basically the same, the practice is very different. Having the chance to split my practice between the two states gives me better perspective and has definitely made me a better lawyer.

What civic cause is the most important to you?

My husband and I mentor a 14-year-old boy. We’ve known him since he was 9 and are proud of the young man he’s becoming. I would recommend mentorship programs or other organizations that can have a big impact for children, like Junior Achievement, to anyone interested. I’m also a big fan of the South Shore Arts Center in my community, Munster, as well. It brings so many great opportunities for theater, art, and music for people in Northwest Indiana.

You’re going to teach a course to a group of second graders though your work with Junior Achievement. Which is more intimidating: entering a courtroom before a trial or a classroom full of kids?

My experience with the second graders in Hammond has given me a better appreciation for what teachers do. I must be very prepared in order to keep them engaged for an hour each Friday. However, I have to say that the most intimidating experience I’ve encountered was walking up to the podium this past January to argue before the Court of Appeals. Once I started my argument though, I was amazed at how the stress melted away almost immediately.

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

John Adams. I am reading his biography, and I find it amazing that he chose to risk his steadily increasing personal and political reputation as an ardent patriot when he agreed to represent the British soldiers accused of murder following the Boston massacre. Though on the opposite side of the political tide, he acted according to his conscience.

Who is your favorite fictional lawyer?

Vincent LaGuardia Gambini – better known as “My Cousin Vinny.”

What’s your guilty pleasure?

Thai food, cupcakes or watching bad romantic comedies (sometimes even for a second or third time).

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

I think it stems from a belief many people have that there can only be one right or wrong answer or position. For those of that mindset, they will have little respect for the skilled orator or writer who masterfully expresses her case and thereby makes it more likely for the position opposing their own to prevail. I believe if we are too quick to judge and decide questions, we’re in trouble. It’s rare anymore that a person approaches an important issue willing to have his or her mind changed. When there’s no risk of being convinced against your position, there’s little point in debate.  

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

Own a small bistro that makes “slow food” and has a large wine list.    

Is there a moment in your career you wish you could do over?

The biggest mistakes have been great learning experiences, but sure, I’d fix a few hiccups along the way.

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

Probably tax law – just not my area of interest. I took it because I liked the professor.
 

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