ILNews

Law school announces directors, meeting

Rebecca Berfanger
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A proposed law school for Indianapolis, the Abraham Clark School of Law, has selected its board of directors and set its next informational meeting.

The board is composed of attorneys Jerrold Abramowitz, Richard Bash, Susan Williams, and Patrick Brown; Greg Kranz, who is in the information technology field; and Sonja Brown, a business owner and part-time legal assistant. Mark Montefiori is the founder and director of the law school with 13 years of experience in higher education. There is also an informal network of individuals acting as advisors.

The informational meeting, which is open to the public, is at 6:30 p.m. Oct. 29 at the Marriott Springhill Suites, 11855 N. Meridian St., Carmel.

Raising seed money for a feasibility study is the board's immediate goal. It is also in the process of changing its formal structure from for-profit to non-profit.

"Not only will it enable individuals and organizations to donate dollars as a tax-deductible contribution but also will allow us to better utilize our resources to more fully accomplish our mission," Montefiori said.

For more information about the proposed school or to attend meetings, people should e-mail Montefiori at abrahamclarklaw@sbcglobal.net, with their name and contact information for follow-up. The board is planning another meeting for November, and an event is tentatively being planned for December.

The school's Web site, will have more information regarding the law school and upcoming events as it becomes available.
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