The Board not only did not object to this extension of jurisdiction, but in reversal of its 1981 motion to terminate all court jurisdiction, embraced both that paragraph and Paragraph “1983-84 17.” This change of position portended a need for a much longer pro bono representation than, for instance, was required by the Bustop attorneys because of the closure of the Crawford proceedings in September, 1981. For, now the burden would be placed upon Intervenors to show cause for concluding jurisdiction, as will be seen, over the objections of both the Plaintiffs and the Board.

When I undertook pro bono representation in 1980 at age 65, I felt ready to assume a responsibility especially unique to a retired lawyer or judge as a sole practitioner. In my instance that uniqueness arose from independence as such a retiree-practitioner — without a U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, or a legal services board, or a public interest or civil rights group, to oversee one’s activities — answerable only to one’s clients and the law.

I had anticipated that it would be a lengthy representation although, of course, not as long as it turned out. Consequently, I prepared for it by the installation of a pot-bellied stove to keep my eight-by-fifteen-foot home office warm in winter temperatures often dipping into the twenties, and adding a selectric typewriter and copier to my “arsenal” of office equipment.
 

Board and Plaintiffs Stipulate to
Continuing Court Jurisdiction

In March, 1989 the Board proposed a stipulation, apparently in collaboration with the Carlin Plaintiffs, for an Amended Final Order re: Integration designed, I believe, to maximize the amount of funding receivable from the State for the integration plan. It contained the above two provisions, to which I objected on April 29, 1989, as follows:

... In addition, the proposed Amended Final Order extends and enlarges the jurisdiction of the Court over School District Affairs in a manner contrary to Intervenors’ long-standing positions and, we believe, to the evolving Supreme Court view on affirmative action.