Pro Bono Spotlight: Sarah Einowski
April 04, 2016
Pro bono attorneys play an invaluable role in NCVLI’s work protecting, enforcing, and advancing victims’ rights. Sarah Einowski, an attorney in Oregon, recently partnered with us to provide pro bono legal services to a crime victim. Read on to learn a little more about her.
Sarah joined Tonkon Torp’s Litigation Department in 2014. Prior to joining Tonkon Torp, Sarah was an Assistant Attorney General in the Oregon Department of Justice, where she worked in both the Appellate Division and the Attorney General’s Office. A graduate of University of Oregon School of Law, Order of the Coif, Sarah served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable David Schuman of the Oregon Court of Appeals and an extern to the Honorable Ann Aiken in the Federal District Court of Oregon, Eugene. As a law student, Sarah was a fellow in the Wayne Morse Center of Law & Politics and managing editor of the Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation.
Sarah represents business clients in a wide range of matters, including breach of contract, shareholder disputes, and products liability. In addition, Sarah has experience working on agency rule challenges, agency appeals, and various other administrative law matters.
How Sarah got involved with NCVLI?
“I first learned about NCVLI by becoming running buddies with NCVLI’s Executive Director, Meg Garvin. Then while working for Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, I saw first-hand how important crime victims’ rights organizations—in conjunction with the Crime Victims Division at the Oregon Department of Justice—are in ensuring victims’ rights are recognized, protected, and advanced.”
How has Sarah partnered with NCVLI?
Sarah served local counsel for an amicus curiae brief filed with the Oregon Court of Appeals. In the case Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted third-degree rape and first-degree online sexual corruption of a child. The victim in the case, a minor, continued to have intense fear of defendant after defendant’s arrest. As a result, her family researched, purchased and had installed a security system and subsequently sought to recover the cost in restitution. Despite the trial court’s finding that defendant’s actions caused the victim to incur the cost of the security system, the trial court awarded only partial restitution, requiring defendant to cover only one-year of the three-year contract. In the brief, we argued that the trial court erred when it failed to award restitution to cover the full cost of the home security system, a cost incurred due to the actions of defendant.