I would thin that a General Counsel ,employed by an organization (and running a legal department within an organization like Corr does), has a different role than an outside general counsel who is employed by a law firm with an organization as a client, no matter the Title. Titles often mean different things within different organizations.

I'm not attempting to minimize anything. I'm asking questions that I don't know the answer to, but which many here, including you, are making important assumptions about.

Was Swarbrick serving other clients as well as USAG while he was serving as their General Counsel, or was that his sole endeavor for that time?

If not, how many hours did he bill to USAG during his time as their General counsel? How does that number compare to the time he billed to other clients?

Who did he report to and how often? How was the organization structured, for that matter?

Frankly, I think it quite unlikely that JS was as involved in USAG as Marianne Corr is at ND. If he was, he wouldn't have been employed by Baker and Daniels.

That doesn't mean that I'm convinced he doesn't hold some responsibility for what occurred, but I don't think it's fair to make assumptions about his role without getting the answers.

As far as online bio descriptions and recommendations, well, I'd hardly hold them as a smoking gun. They are mostly fluff.

Why would ND put it on his bio? To establish his experience in the sports world.

As far as the recommendation, I don't see much relating to USAG, there. It seems to tout JS's role in advancing sports in Indianapolis more than anything he did for USAG ,no?

There’s plenty of evidence you continue to ignore, so whatever.

There is no point in going on. If you think Jack was just an outside lawyer, despite all evidence and statements to the contrary, OK.



One last thing though. Go back and read all of his articles that he wrote for the USAG publication and references to him in that publication as well. If you still don’t think he was intimately involved in running the organization, at least you are fully aware of the facts.

He wasn’t just an outside lawyer. We don’t get to rewrite history here.

They're pretty simple questions. If you know that he was intimately involved in the organization, I'd think you'd be able to tell me how much time he spent working for them, who he was reporting to, and how the organization was structured.

Yet you haven't. You don't get to write history here without facts.

I haven't attempted to re-write anything. I've asked questions that I think are relevant. I haven't once stated he was "just an outside lawyer." I don't know what he did for USAG.

For all I know he was actively involved in a coverup. Or he only he gave sound legal advice and abuses still occurred. Or somewhere in between.

But you've already decide that he's a stain on the university without bothering to wait for facts.

They are easy to find. This isn't rocket science, but I'll restate what I said below.

Jack was their only lawyer and their general counsel.


Do you honestly think that an organization the size of USAG just has a side lawyer for the occasional question?

I'm sorry you are choosing not to read what's been posted or what's out there, not sure why. Again, this isn't that hard.

Here's just a snippet, from google

"Jack Swarbrick, the corporation's general counsel, continues to work with the organization on a daily basis and reports that the management committee concept is working well"


So he works with them on a daily basis, is involved with and can opine on the "management committee", but he's just an outside lawyer who delegates all the work to associates, because he's a partner at Baker Daniels.

Like I said, not too hard. And I don't blame you, but I do blame the dipshits who have actively sought to diminish his role with the organization because they are scared of what it means. It's pretty embarrassing for them. They are feeding ND alumni a bunch of lies and are just sycophantic spin machines, afraid to think that our AD had a large role in all of this.

Jack as the guy who dealt with the complaints. I can’t link it again. Look for “You give zero weight.”

I wouldn’t discount Jack just because he was outside-inside. Baker Daniels allowed USAG to call Jack its GC, and I can tell you from personal experience that law firms won’t do that unless both the work and the responsibility is substantial.

And we know that USAG had no in-house counsel.

The idea that he was just some outside lawyer, when he was their only lawyer, is preposterous