Search Results

Professor Julian Arato Elected to Executive Council of American Society of International Law Professor Julian Arato has been elected to the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) for a three-year term. ASIL, founded in 1906, was chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1950 to foster the study of international law and to promote the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice. In early April, Arato served as an ASIL observer delegate to the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law, Working Group III, on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) reform. ISDS is a system through which investors can directly sue nation states in international fora for alleged breaches of their treaty rights. Arato also has been instrumental in bringing ASIL’s high-profile Midyear Meeting to Brooklyn Law School Nov. 7-9, 2019. “What’s amazing is that our partnership allows us to bring a number of Brooklyn Law School students each year to ASIL’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C.,” he said. “They are exposed to areas of practice and career opportunities well beyond the ordinary.”

Summer Legal Process Get a head start on law school The Summer Legal Process Course gives participating students an introduction to law school. It is conducted prior to the start of the fall semester, and introduces students to case reading, briefing, and legal writing as well as other key study skills such as time management, outlining, resource creation, legal writing. The course also features mock classes from legal writing and doctrinal professors as well as guest speeches from recent alums and upper-division students who are alums of Summer Legal Process. Summer Legal Process is offered to a small number of entering students, and participation is strictly voluntary. It is team-taught by members of the full-time faculty, thus exposing the students to several different teaching styles. The course also provides many opportunities for collaboration and creative, thoughtful exploration of different learning methods and techniques. Finally, students take a simulated exam intended to replicate law school final exams, and receive key feedback on their exam performance. Questions about the Academic Success Program? Contact us: Professor Joe Buffington Interim Director of the Academic Success Program Phone: 718-780-0385 Email: joe.buffington@brooklaw.edu --> Karen PorterAssociate Dean for Academic and Student Success and Associate Professor of Clinical Lawkaren.porter@brooklaw.edu Meg HolzerAssistant Professor of Legal Writingmeg.holzer@brooklaw.edu  

Career Programs Let us help you make informed decisions The Career Development Center offers large and intimate career related panels and information sessions, mentorship programs, and workshops to help guide students in established and developing practice areas, and to develop job search skills. We partner with student organizations to develop year-round programming tailored to your interests and needs. Discover Your Passion Discover Your Passion--> Discover Your Passion is a virtual series in which attorneys from a wide range of practice areas speak about their background, their path from law school, as well as what their day-to-day entails. The goal of the program is to offer you the opportunity to learn about and explore a variety of practice areas and hear from different practitioners. Throughout the academic year, this series is an opportunity to meet attorneys in a more intimate setting and provides greater insight into practice areas and career paths.  --> Skills Workshops Develop the vital and sophisticated job search, interviewing and networking skills you will need to land a job and build a successful career. Remote Alumni Advisors Brooklyn Law School Remote Alumni Advisors is a group of alumni who are serving as remote mentors, coaches, or sounding boards for our students.

Brooklyn Colloquium on International Economic Law Join us at our annual Spring colloquium The International Economic Law (IEL) Colloquium is presented by the Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law, and convened by Professors Stratos Pahis, and Irene Ten Cate. Colloquium sessions are open to the public, and members of the NYC International Law community are encouraged to attend. Public sessions will be held on Mondays from 12:45 pm to 1:45 pm at: Brooklyn Law SchoolSubotnick Center250 Joralemon St, 11th floorBrooklyn, NY 11202 Spring 2025 Schedule International Economic Law Colloquium (events below will all take place at 12:45pm in Subotnick 11) Monday, February 10: Andy Hessick and Mark Weidemaier (UNC School of Law) Monday, February 24: Mae Nguyen (Temple Law School) Monday, March 24: Peter Goodman (The New York Times) Thursday, April 10: David Abrams (Penn Law) Annual Evening Lecture Monday, March 3rd, 5:30pm – 7pm: Jose Alvarez (NYU)

Join us for breakfast and conversation to explore recent legal and policy developments that impact adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The theme of this year’s roundtable is Mobilizing and Amplifying the Voices of the Disability Community to Create Change. Topics include issues and initiatives in criminal justice; recent developments in special education and transitional services; access to the New York State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and recent changes to service delivery; relationships and sexuality; systemic legal challenges; and the right to family. Keynote Speaker Jumaane D. Williams, New York City Public Advocate, will be joining us. In addition to being the Public Advocate of the City of New York, Mr. Williams is a first-generation Brooklynite of Grenadian heritage. He graduated from the public school system, overcoming the difficulties of Tourette's and ADHD to earn a Master's Degree from Brooklyn College. Before becoming the public advocate, he served on the New York City Council where he championed landmark legislation that fundamentally transformed policing in NYC. About the Roundtable Discussion Participants will join experts in the field to engage in a facilitated conversation about recent changes and developments in the intersecting areas. As always, the roundtable will offer a collaborative environment to learn about the latest developments in the law, exchange ideas, establish new community partnerships, and explore solutions for change. A key goal of the roundtable is for participants to contribute their thoughts about issues that affect the disability community that they believe need to be addressed. Individuals with disabilities, legal advocates, family members, community organizations and government entities are encouraged to attend.   Continental breakfast and registration begin at 8:30 am. Program Commences at 9:00 am.   More Information For general inquiries regarding this event, please contact the Office of Events at events@brooklaw.edu or (718) 780-7966. Requests for a reasonable accommodation based on a disability to attend this event should be made to Louise Cohen, the Director of Equal Opportunity and Title IX Coordinator, at louise.cohen@brooklaw.edu. Please make your request as soon as possible.   Co-sponsored by the Disability and Civil Rights Clinic and the Center for Health, Science and Public Policy.   Venue is wheelchair accessible. Free and open to the public.

On the eve of the midterm elections, Professor Susan Herman, President of the American Civil Liberties Union and a highly regarded authority on constitutional law and criminal procedure, addressed the question “Do We Live in a Democracy?” during the November Dean’s Law and Policy Series program. Interim Dean Maryellen Fullerton moderated the third and final program of the fall semester. Setting aside the implications of the mid-term election, Herman examined the framework of our electoral system and how it seems that “the deck is stacked in favor of a minority of people being able to control the government” and what remedies might exist to change the current system. “The Constitution is the villain here, but it’s also the hero,” said Herman. “The framers of the Constitution were people who couldn’t agree on anything, so instead they drafted the Constitution—a set of neutral principles that help us decide who gets to make those decisions.” One of the framers’ compromises was the Senate, Herman said, which can be considered anti-democratic because it allocates two representatives to each state regardless of population. She also discussed ways that the right to vote can be limited or diluted through practices such as gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and felony disenfranchisement, and noted that many such practices have racist origins dating back to the Reconstruction Era. Some remedies to anti-democratic voting policies that Herman highlighted include the National Popular Vote interstate compact that would commit states’ electorates to vote for the winner of the popular vote, automatic voter registration, state courts ruling against gerrymandering, and Florida’s referendum to end felony disenfranchisement, which just passed. “It’s a matter of getting back to our constitutional principles that we should all have neutral rules for how we vote,” said Herman. “If the framers of our Constitution with all their differences…could manage to come up with compromises…that should be a beacon for us today.” The Dean’s Law and Policy Series will resume in the spring semester. Watch the program here.

In “The New Brooklyn: What It Takes to Bring a City Back” by Kay S. Hymowitz (Rowman & Littlefield 2017), the Brooklyn Law Incubator and Policy (BLIP) Clinic, under the direction of Professor Jonathan Askin, is cited as a significant player in Brooklyn’s recent surge in business growth. “The Brooklyn Law Incubator and Clinic, launched in 2008, advises aspiring entrepreneurs about everything from intellectual property law to contract agreements – and simultaneously trains young lawyers in this growing field,” Hymowitz writes. “Under the guidance of Jon Askin, a law professor and tech enthusiast, the clinic organized meet-ups for companies sharing a particular focus.” “You don’t know what the next great idea is going to be when you have brilliant freaks of different perspectives living and working on top of each other,” Askin said. Hymowitz also mentions that Brooklyn Law School has begun partnering with B. Amsterdam, a Netherlands incubator, since “a lot of European start-ups want space in Brooklyn.” Part of the Center for Urban Business Entreprenuership (CUBE), BLIP has helped more than 1,000 clients with incorporation, intellectual property protection, contract negotiation and drafting, and web documentation, while also providing litigation support, regulatory and policy advocacy, and general legal advice. Students learn the intricacies of representing startups in emerging businesses where few, if any, laws were designed to accommodate new and burgeoning ideas. They advocate on behalf of causes and businesses whose interests and concepts have not been represented in the legislative, regulatory and judicial arenas. With a diverse client portfolio, students and their clients confront varying legal, business and policy challenges across the spectrum of technology, Internet, media and telecom issues. BLIP is now also representing a large array of ventures from around the world looking for access to US markets and for US-based ventures with global aspirations. More about the Brooklyn Law Incubator and Policy (BLIP) Clinic. More about “The New Brooklyn: What It Takes to Bring a City Back.”

The Brooklyn Law School Alumni Dinner brings together leaders in our legal community as we celebrate the distinguished careers of our honorees. Please join us to reconnect with friends, classmates, and colleagues.

Your Toaster Is Watching You How the Internet of Things challenges our understanding of privacy, security, and ownership By Professor Christina Mulligan In the 1990s and early 2000s, technology enthusiasts wondered how the rapidly growing Internet would change everyday life. The idea that the Internet—“cyberspace”—was like a place you could travel to, a Wild West separate from the constraints imposed by governments and society, gripped imaginations. In a famous 1996 essay, Grateful Dead lyricist and Electronic Frontier Foundation founder John Perry Barlow set forth a utopian vision for the independence of cyberspace from powers in the physical world, the “weary giants of flesh and steel.” At the time, the essay resonated. Anyone could hook their computer up to a phone line, dial a connection, and find their minds and words transported to chat rooms and web pages with people across the globe, even as their bodies stayed sitting in a chair, typing on a clunky beige keyboard. But cyberspace didn’t develop as Barlow and others anticipated. Today, we don’t glue ourselves to a chair in the corner of a den to “go online.” The Internet is with us everywhere we go, not only on our cell phones and tablets and laptops, but also in our home appliances, in our cars, and on drone-mounted cameras that we fly around outside. Developments in computing technology didn’t lead to freedom from a physical reality—they led to augmenting the reality we already inhabit. Maybe you wear an activity tracker or wristwatch that records how much you have walked, stood, and exercised throughout the day. Maybe your digital camera or phone automatically uploads the pictures you’ve taken to the Internet. Maybe your smart vacuum has created its own map of the layout of your home in its never-ending journey to remove dust from your carpet. Network-connected devices—better known as the objects that make up the “Internet of Things”—allow both their users and their manufacturers to behave in ways that were not technologically possible even five or 10 years ago. Users gain functionality, such as the ability to automate tasks (like vacuuming) or acquire information that could not easily be gathered before (like counting every step you take). Meanwhile, product makers gain the ability to know and change what devices do after they leave the store. Self-monitoring products can communicate to their makers what they have been up to; manufacturers also can install updates in devices after they’ve been sold, improving their security or changing their functionality. Innovation or Invasion? Networked devices raise a host of hard legal questions, largely separable into questions about privacy, security, and property. In the privacy realm, we are beginning to ask whether there should be any limits on what devices can record and share with their manufacturers, and how that information should be used by device sellers and other parties with whom they choose to share that data. In one recent controversy, iRobot, the company that makes and sells the popular “smart” vacuum Roomba, made headlines when it considered selling the maps Roomba makes of users’ homes to third parties. How much unwanted invasion into our private lives is permissible? We’re all familiar with apps and streaming services that let us play games and listen to music for free in exchange for watching advertisements, but what if our smart toaster makes us listen to an ad for a new brand of English muffin because it knows we are toasting a bagel? Should your blender be able to try to sell you a new brand of diet drinks before you make a smoothie? Closely related to privacy concerns are security concerns. Networked objects can be hijacked and used to target their owners—one famous example involved someone hacking a network-connected baby monitor and using it to spout obscenities at a small child—but even more troubling are cases in which devices are co-opted not to cause problems for their owners, but to participate in completely separate activities. A distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack last year that was executed by co-opted smart appliances rendered several major websites, including Twitter and Spotify, inaccessible. During a DDoS attack, many computers flood a target computer with requests to overload the target’s systems and stop it from functioning normally. In this case, smart appliances had been hacked and programmed to participate in the DDoS attack, while their owners remained ignorant of the harm being caused by devices in their own homes. The danger in these attacks is that, because the harm is not felt by the networked product’s manufacturer or purchaser, manufacturers won’t necessarily have incentives to make their devices secure enough to fend off outside attacks. Incidents like these spurred renowned security researcher Bruce Schneier to state in testimony before Congress, “It might be that the Internet era of fun and games is now over, because the Internet is dangerous.” Indeed, as more mobile objects—including cars—are designed with embedded computers that run code, we have to grapple with the striking realization that the Internet can become physically dangerous. Hacked or error-filled code can cause a networked device to malfunction and physically harm the surrounding people or environment. Scholars and policy analysts are now asking how the law can be used to create the right incentives to make secure devices and, given that all major software projects inevitably have bugs, what kind of standards can be used to determine if a product is secure enough.   What’s Yours is Theirs The Internet of Things also raises challenging questions about property rights. While this area may seem less fraught than privacy or security, the question of who has what rights to the objects that make up the Internet of Things has direct and critical implications for privacy and security issues as well. Personal property rights have historically been simple. Objects such as watches, jewelry, cameras, and vacuum cleaners were usually owned in “fee simple”—purchasers of those products owned, to phrase their rights colloquially, the whole thing, forever. Once a product was sold, the manufacturer’s legal power to direct its use was done. Simply put, you owned the things you bought, and you could do with them as you pleased. Not so anymore, at least when the objects you buy contain computers and execute software code. If you’ve “upgraded” from a Hoover to a Roomba or from a Rolex to an Apple Watch in recent years, you might be surprised to learn that your “ownership” of that appliance or accessory has become a lot more complicated. You own the chassis—the physical shell of the device, along with the wheels of the Roomba, or the strap of the watch. But, if the device you buy is like most others on the market, you don’t own the copy of the software running inside it. Likely you had to agree to a set of terms when you turned the device on, or your device came with a piece of paper that contained words that stated something like, “This software is licensed and not sold to you.” The terms might have stated that the software was, for example, licensed “for personal use” only, or for “noncommercial” use. They might have stated that the software and its license could not be transferred to another person, or could only be transferred under certain circumstances (such as through an officially sanctioned resale program). Or, they might have specified that the purchaser was not allowed to change the code, or that the device could only be repaired by an officially licensed repair person if the repair involved access to the device’s software. Courts tend to enforce these license agreements, although scholars disagree about whether it is appropriate for manufacturers to license, rather than sell, the copies of software in smart products. Most device sellers opt to license use of software copies to consumers, denying them the benefits of ownership and imposing restrictions on how the software may be used or transferred. Manufacturers could choose instead to sell the software in their products, but almost none do because using licenses affords them greater control over how the product is used. Selling copies of the program would trigger the “first sale doctrine” and other copyright exceptions, which would give consumers roughly the same rights to the software copy that the common law would give them over purchased nondigital products: the right to have and use the copy and to resell it. In other words, if manufacturers sold the software embedded in their devices, buyers would have roughly all the same rights in their digital cameras and smart watches that they have in their older film cameras and analog watches. Several scholars have critiqued the notion that the copyright statute contemplates the idea that use of a copy can be “licensed” indefinitely, or that a manufacturer can avoid transferring ownership of a copy to consumers merely by stating that the work is “licensed, not sold” and is subject to restrictions. But despite these sorts of arguments, courts typically have found that licensing copies is permitted and does not amount to a sale of that copy. Product manufacturers further fortify the control that licensing affords by using what’s known as digital rights management (DRM) technology or technological protection measures (TPM). If you have ever had to type in a password to open an encrypted file or log into an account to play a piece of digital media, you have encountered DRM. Recent examples include John Deere’s ongoing attempts to force the buyers of its tractors to only use Deere-approved repair persons—no one else is authorized to access the software inside John Deere tractors. Deere maintains that it has the authority to decide who can access, change, and repair the software inside the John Deere tractors because the tractors’ software is merely licensed to the farmers. Meanwhile, farmers using John Deere tractors have publicly complained that they can’t afford to wait for an official John Deere repair person to come out to their farm if their tractor is broken. New Policy for a New World Privacy, security, and property rights in the Internet of Things can interact in complex ways. If consumers aren’t allowed to control the objects they buy, product makers will be more able to effectively monitor their consumers. Ongoing control over products’ software allows product sellers to put out security updates, but also can prevent end-users from taking matters into their own hands if the manufacturers do not. Ultimately, all these issues lead to a key question: who should control the objects in your home, the devices you wear on your body, and the vehicles that transport you? There are many reasons to prefer a legal regime where ultimate authority over our personal property rests with individual owners, not with manufacturers, but two reasons stand out as particularly resonant. First, consumers are in a better position to know what they need their property to do and when. Second, even when our property isn’t tied up in our economic well-being, personal property still helps us establish our identity and personal autonomy. We create our sense of self in part by constructing the space immediately around us. That process is undermined when the objects closest to us spy on us, advertise to us, or refuse to obey us in favor of their manufacturer. Our new augmented reality has changed the world in ways that we are still trying to understand. What do privacy, security, and property mean now that objects in our own homes aren’t entirely under our control? As lawyers, we stand in a promising position as these questions are raised. With so many issues still unresolved, we each have the opportunity to steer technology law and policy in the right direction. Christina Mulligan is associate professor of law at Brooklyn Law School where she teaches courses on cybercrime, Internet law, intellectual property, and trusts and estates.She was recently appointed chair-elect of the American Association of Law Schools Section on Internet and Computer Law. Her scholarship addresses intellectual property, property, and the relationship between law and technology, and her research seeks to better adapt intellectual property law for the digital age. Her work has appeared in a variety of journals and law reviews, including the Georgia Law Review, SMU Law Review, and Constitutional Commentary. She earned her bachelor’s degree and J.D. from Harvard University, where she served as a production and articles editor for the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

Brooklyn Law School celebrated its 117th commencement ceremony on May 18 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music where 370 J.D. and 22 LL.M. degrees were conferred. The Law School also has announced the names of graduates who have been awarded honors and received a prize or award. Hon. Dora L. Irizarry, Chief Judge of the Eastern District of New York, was the commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary degree. Irizarry has achieved a remarkable succession of firsts in her career. She is the first Hispanic woman to serve as a state judge in New York, the first Hispanic district judge to serve in the Eastern District of New York, and the first Hispanic chief judge of that court and within the Second Circuit. In her remarks, she spoke about the strong connections between the Law School and surrounding legal community, including the nearby federal court. “I have had the privilege and joy of participating in Brooklyn Law School’s various academic, bench and bar programs,” she said. “I look forward enthusiastically to a continued partnership…to supplement the school’s curriculum with judicial internships, advocacy programs, and access to court proceedings and judges as learning vehicles. I am proud and pleased to say that a number of my former student interns and law clerks are Brooklyn Law School graduates—all of whom have distinguished themselves in their legal careers.” Seven Brooklyn Law School graduates have served as law clerks for Irizarry over the years, including Hon. Jeanette Rodriguez-Morick ’93, who served as her first law clerk and was on the stage at the commencement ceremony. Acknowledging Judge I. Leo Glasser ’48, a former dean of the Law School, and Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes Jr. ‘92, who also were on the stage, Irizarry encouraged the graduates to be inspired by, and to build on, the legacy of service and distinction of their fellow alumni. “Brooklyn Law School has produced many illustrious attorneys and jurists—some of whom studied at night like Judge Glasser—while working fulltime and raising families…many of them broke barriers in the profession as women and minorities,” she said. “You now have the opportunity to follow the example of those who came before you who have made their mark as attorneys, in the private sector, as public servants, as academics and judges, and put your own spin on the world.” Stuart Subotnick '68, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, presided over the ceremony and led the conferring of degrees. Reverend Adriene Thorne, senior pastor at the first Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn, delivered the opening invocation. The graduates also heard from valedictorian Jaime Freilich ’18 and Maria Ortiz ’18, who was elected student speaker by her classmates. Freilich spoke about the importance of the support the graduates have received over the years from their families, their peers, and the faculty. “While we each came to law school for our own personal reasons, we would not survive if we went through it alone because the intricacies of the law were best learned with others,” she said. “We found study partners or groups, not only to give the non-lawyers in our lives a break from our incessant ramblings, but to help ourselves—and to help each other.” An avid runner, Freilich recalled as a 1L running into Professor Edward Janger during a race and how he encouraged her to keep going. “That moment stuck with me because his encouragement was what I needed to make it to the finish line,” she said. “Just as Professor Janger encouraged me during my run, it was the esteemed Brooklyn Law faculty that helped each of us cross the proverbial finish line of law school—cheering us on, encouraging us when we most needed it, and providing us the education and knowledge to take on what comes next.” Ortiz echoed Freilich’s message, reflecting on the many challenges she faced during her years in law school and how the strong community helped her to overcome obstacles and achieve her dream of earning her law degree. Quoting a line from the movie “A League of Their Own”—“It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard everyone would do it. The hard is what makes it great.”—Ortiz compared the tight-knit baseball team to the support she found at the Law School. “I have been surrounded by encouraging mentors, in the form of alumni, classmates, and professors, who believed in me when I couldn’t believe in myself,” she said. In his remarks, Dean Nick Allard encouraged the graduates to think deeply about the kind of impact that they want to have in the years ahead. “Think about what you want your legacy to be over time," said Allard. "I offer three seemingly old-fashion words that I believe are more relevant to us than ever as lawyers, as citizens and as human beings—virtue, courage and civility.” Invoking the many challenges facing the nation and the world, he told the graduates: “Future generations will look now at how you acted in this particular pivotal moment in history, or in the words of a song from the popular Broadway musical, Hamilton, “History has its eyes on you.” Allard also recognized Professor Linda Feldman, founder and director of the Academic Success Program, who is retiring after 30 years of teaching at the Law School. “Linda Feldman is the heart and soul of Brooklyn Law School,” Allard said. “Her extraordinary dedication to student success has done nothing less than transform the lives of generations of our students, who earned their law degrees and went on to successful careers.” In another highlight of the ceremony. and a surprise to the honoree, Subotnick was awarded a special honorary degree by Francis J. Aquila ’83, vice chairman of the Board of Trustees. Subotnick, who is celebrating his 50th reunion year, was honored for his “many decades of outstanding leadership, dedication, vision, and unparalleled service and support to Brooklyn Law School.” Aquila cited Subotnick’s extraordinary philanthropy and his career achievements as chief executive officer of Metromedia Company. Also on stage with Subotnick were his classmates Joseph Catanzaro, Danny Greenblatt, and Martin Siegel. After the commencement ceremony, the Law School continued its annual tradition of hosting a picnic for graduates and their families in the courtyard of the main campus building. Visit the commencement Flickr gallery. Hear from the graduates in a special commencement video. Read Dean Nick Allard’s commencement speech.

Ways to Give We offer many ways to give to Brooklyn Law School We value your support and gifts of every size make an enormous difference to future generations of Brooklyn Law School students. We have made the process of giving as easy as possible. Make your contribution online or by phone, or for further assistance, contact our Development Office and speak to one of our helpful staff members. Credit Card Donations Complete our easy gift form online to pay by credit card. To make a gift by phone, please contact us at giving@brooklaw.edu or (718) 780-7505. Check Donations Please make your check payable to Brooklyn Law School and send it to: Brooklyn Law School Office of Development 250 Joralemon Street Brooklyn, NY 11201-9710 Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds Donating appreciated securities is an excellent way to show your support for Brooklyn Law School. It may also provide you with significant tax benefit such as: You may be able to avoid paying capital gains tax on the increase in the value of your shares given to the law school. You may be able to claim the full market value of donated shares as a charitable deduction on your income tax. Please consult your tax professional for more information. For more information, please contact us at (718) 780-7505. To contribute securities directly to Brooklyn Law School, please notify us of your intentions to transfer stock at your earliest convenience by completing the Gift of Stock Authorization Form: Matching Gifts Want to double or triple the impact of your contribution? Many companies and some law firms will match a gift to the Law School (law firms in particular offer matching gift programs to associates to encourage philanthropy). If you or your spouse work for an employer offering this benefit, contact your personnel office about a matching gift. Depending on your employer's program, it can be made online, by automated phone system, or with a paper form to be submitted with your gift. You can search through our Matching Gift Database to see if your organization participates. Please contact the development office at (718) 780-7505 for more information or to make a matching gift. Planned Gifts When you make a planned gift to Brooklyn Law School, your impact lasts far beyond your lifetime. Your gift opens a world of possibility to generations of students to come. Donors who make such thoughtful gifts to Brooklyn Law School become members of The Legacy Society. By planning today, you can provide for the future of Brooklyn Law School, and may also qualify for significant tax savings. Honorary Gifts Honorary gifts can be a thoughtful way to show your appreciation for someone or for commemorating a significant event. Donations can be made online below, or mailed to the address listed below. Those being honored will be notified of your gift; so please include the name and address of the honoree so that we may notify them of your thoughtfulness. Mail checks to: Brooklyn Law School, Office of Development, 250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201 Memorial Gifts Memorial gifts can help ensure a person’s legacy will continue, or honor the wishes of the departed. These gifts may be made online below, or mailed to the address listed below in the sample obituary language. Please include the name of the memorialized, along with the name and address of the individual(s) to whom you would like acknowledgment sent. For those who would like to include donation information for Brooklyn Law School in an obituary, please use this sample language: In lieu of flowers, the family requests that memorial gifts be designated to the Brooklyn Law School Annual Fund. These gifts may be made online at www.brooklaw.edu/give or mailed to: Brooklyn Law School, Office of Development, 250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Named Scholarships Brooklyn Law School’s endowed scholars program is rooted in the generosity of generations of alumni and friends of the Law School. It is more important than ever that we support graduates in their ambitions and help reduce their debt burdens. When establishing a named scholarship, donors have the opportunity to name the fund in honor or in memory of someone who has touched their lives. Moot Court Seats Name a seat today and become a lasting part of the Moot Court Room. Brooklyn Law School is delighted to offer graduates and friends an exciting opportunity for lifetime recognition in the Moot Court Room where seats are available for personal dedication. The Moot Court Room is used by our talented students throughout the academic year to practice their appellate arguments. It is also used for a number of academic and social events. A seat dedication is a meaningful way to commemorate your personal experience, or honor someone of importance in your life. Name a seat today and become a lasting part of the Moot Court Room. For more information please contact Development and Alumni Engagement at alumni@brooklaw.edu or (718) 780-7505.