my representation from June, 1979, in the capacity of amici curiae for the "Groundswell" parents and students, until the need for a more active representation became obvious in the fall of 1980. By September, 1980, last-ditch efforts by the Los Angeles school board and Bustop to stay the busing of over 80,000 students there had been thwarted by counsel for the Crawford plaintiffs. And their co-counsel for the Carlin plaintiffs in San Diego were pursuing an appeal from the 1979 integration order, directed in substantial part towards its failure to include a busing segment.

The concern of then-Justice Rehnquist expressed September 12, 1980, in denying the stay in Crawford, regarding the treatment of students as "elements" in Judge Egly's desegregation plan pointed up the need for the direct representation of students, and their parents, objecting to such treatment. I would need to make another effort in behalf of my clients to intervene to put that and other issues peculiar to them at issue, and to take an appeal if intervention was denied.

To be ready for extended action, I added an electric typewriter and copy machine to my "arsenal" of office equipment. And I installed a pot-bellied stove to keep my eight-by-fifteen-foot office warm in winter temperatures often dipping into the twenties.

At the age of 65, I was now ready to assume a responsibility in the practice of the law especially unique to the sole practitioner. That uniqueness arises from the independence of such a practitioner — without a U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, or a legal services board, or a public interest group, or civil rights organization to oversee one's activities — answerable only to one's clients and to the law. I have felt a sense of exhilaration in tackling the obstacles in the course of this intervention which I rather expansively feel is akin to what Col. Lindbergh felt in the course of planning and flying solo to Paris, except that my flight has not ended.

2. Intervention. Just before then-Justice Rehnquist's denial of the request for stay of busing in the Los Angeles case, the Carlin Court issued its September 8, 1980, memorandum decision and order suggesting the possibility of further consideration of busing in San Diego. I responded to the Sept. 8 memorandum by an amici brief filed on October 10. Those actions and events leading to them, described in more detail in Chapter Three, portended renewed pressure for busing by its advocates