ILNews

Clinic director moves to AG's office

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After founding Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic and serving as its executive director since January 1994, Abigail Kuzma is leaving the organization to work in the Consumer Protection Division of the Indiana Attorney General's Office.

She said the work will be similar to what she's done at NCLC including protecting those most vulnerable to consumer fraud and furthering foreclosure prevention efforts. She will also be instrumental in improving the division's community outreach efforts, which will include AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers who will help the office reach out to the needy in the state's 14 pro bono districts.

Kuzma said she and NCLC board president Joseph E. Miller Jr. of Baker & Daniels' Indianapolis office had been working on a succession plan for the past two years. While she hadn't yet started to look for another job, the timing was right when she was offered this one.

She has been working for the AG's office part-time since mid-February while continuing her work at NCLC; she starts at the AG's office full time April 6.

NCLC managing attorney Josh Abel, who has been with the organization for four years, will be the interim executive director and will likely become the next executive director, Kuzma said.

Kuzma will continue to work with NCLC as co-board chair with Miller.

More information about this story will appear in the April 1-14, 2009, edition of Indiana Lawyer.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT