to represent clients with a worthy causes on a pro bono basis with a minimum of out-of-pocket expenses. He has continued to maintain his subscriptions in legal digests and newspapers.

In the course of his public interest practice, Lawyer wrote an article at the end of 1992 questioning the basis for open-ended maintenance of court-ordered busing in City schools.

After publication of Lawyer's article, leaders of the petitioners for the neighborhood school option came to him for assistance, upon the failure of the school board to act upon their petitions, in gaining for their children that option.

Lawyer learns from them their futile efforts to gain for their children the option to attend their neighborhood schools and their personal and educational reasons why this is in the best interests of their children. They also point out that in the past school board members have faced strong opposition to any moves to have the school system declared unitary so as to be able to institute a neighborhood school system.

For these reasons and because of the strong opposition mounted to past movements toward a neighborhood plan by ACLU-affiliated counsel representing the plaintiff class, the dissenters do not anticipate any effort by the board in that direction in the foreseeable future. Finally, they all believe that the continuing court-ordered busing (for over twenty years) of District children, on a racial basis, beyond their nearby neighborhood schools without their consent and the consent of their parents, is violative of their constitutional rights.

They hope that Lawyer, as a public interest lawyer, can help them on a pro bono basis in asserting their rights, as it is apparent they will be unable to pay attorney fees in a case of this complexity. He calls to their attention the difficulties (1) that the Oklahoma City school board is still having in gaining final court approval for an elementary neighborhood school program, and (2) that the DeKalb County officials still face in gaining final court approval for continuing a neighborhood school program. However, he indicates that he is aware of an intervention in San Diego which has placed the constitutional rights of similarly situated parents and students before the court in a "desegregation" suit there. He understands that court-ordered busing has been avoided there and will investigate the possibility of intervening to similarly seek a neighborhood school plan in the City District.