ILNews

Valpo grad lands sports law 'dream job'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Valparaiso University School of Law 2006 graduate who participated in the school's Sports Law Clinic, including the clinic's work in Turin, Italy, during the 2006 Winter Olympics, will begin work with the United States Anti-Doping Agency in Colorado Springs, Colo., March 10.

As director of legal affairs for the USADA, Stephen A. Starks will prosecute doping cases against Olympic athletes as well as handle day-to-day matters in USADA's legal office as the "No. 2 of two" lawyers in the office of general counsel. He said he will also be working diligently to get up to speed before the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.

He is one of the first students of the clinic - started during the 2005-06 school year - to accept a full-time job in sports law with a sports agency.

Starks will remain with Bose McKinney & Evans in Indianapolis until Feb. 29. Prior to his work in private practice, Starks fulfilled a one-year clerkship with Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore R. Boehm.

As a law student, Starks wrote the brief and argued the case for the athlete in USADA vs. George Hartman in 2006. He argued before the American Arbitration Association against USADA's then-general counsel and current CEO Travis Tygart and Bill Bock, the current USADA general counsel.

In an April 2007 interview for a May 2-15, 2007, Indiana Lawyer article, "Team assists athletes," Starks expressed an interest in pursuing sports law.

"My dream is to get into sports law, but as a young lawyer you take the opportunities that are presented to you. So you get with a reputable firm and get involved with clients they have who have a sports interest," Starks said.

Recently, Tygart personally called Starks to officially offer him the job in their legal department.

"It's unique to get an opportunity from the CEO who has had your position," Starks said Feb. 22. "The learning curve is going to be so steep ... you can't ask to be in a better position as far as (having a CEO as a mentor). Very few positions are recruited by the head man."

While Starks said the firm has been "tremendously supportive," he will miss his work in Indianapolis. With parents living in Fort Wayne, he plans to keep up with his Indiana connections, including his Indiana law license.

"Unfortunately, (taking this job) means I have to leave what I consider to be the best firm in our state so quickly," he said. "It is a dream job to be involved with sports not just as far as doing legal work but to also work for a sports entity. I think getting a job with USADA epitomizes that dream."

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT