Court filings regarding scheduling letter, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), Joshua intervenors', Knight intervenors', and Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) responses to court order, Office of Desegregation Management (ODM) report, and ADE project management tool.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<items type="array"> <item>

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>Court filings: District Court, three orders; Court of Appeals scheduling letter; District Court, response to court order by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, response to court order by Knight intervenors; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Court's March 17, 2004, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to order; District Court, supplement to response to Court order by separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); District Court, NLRSD response to Court's March 17, 2004, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''The Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) implementation of the Court's compliance remedy''; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. \ \ RECE i ~ED FILED tUt AR J. " l'!fv1.lQ 4, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFF!::: '.' '.' DESEGREr.mr IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~AME MAR 1 ?. 2004 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION y: ___ "=~v.u~~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DNIHOllNOW NOllV~31:W3S30 :lO 33H:l0 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ~OOl 8 I ~vw ORDER Lawyers for the parties will please provide the following information: 1. Do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("employee" is to be construed broadly regardless of job description)? 2. The dates of any such attorney-client relationship. 3. Whether you deem it proper for a lawyer representing a party in this case to represent an employee of the ODM. 4. If you deem it proper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority. 5. If you deem it improper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority. "Attorney-client," "representation," and "consultation" are to be construed broadly. As an example, a telephone conversation during which the employee seeks to employ a lawyer, or seeks - legal advice of any nature, whether or not it is related to an ODM matter ( even on a one-time - basis) is "representation." A would-be client who talks with a lawyer falls within the definitions above. "[W]ould-be clients are virtually indistinguishable from 'actual ' clients during the period in which a relationship is under consideration ... "1 If, for example, a person calls a lawyer, describes a car wreck, and asks, "has the statute of limitations run" and the lawyer answers with a definitive, monosyllabic, "yes," this is sufficient to establish an attorney-client relationship for that brief period of time. Generally, see also the Law of Lawyering, Volume 1, 1.6: I 03 and 1.6: 105. Your response to this order must be filed by noon on Friday, March 26, 2004. IT IS SO ORDERED this _/2Tlt,arch, 2004. d,, UN' ~J/r!;;UDGE WM. R. WILSON, JR. 1Law of Lawyering, Volume 1, 1.6:115 at 168.17. ~srRl5!4,~ D o1srR1cr couRr IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT MAR f B AR!vws,4,s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMt:s VV 2004 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION .By; MccoRMAc K, CLt:Rk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER I. In response to an Order, entered yesterday (March 17, 2004) Mr. John W. Walker, one of Joshua Intervenor' s lawyers, has fax ed a letter to me today, a copy of which is attached to this Order as Exhibit A. 2. Among several other things Mr. Walker states, "we do not represent any member of the ODM staff present or past as far as we know. I add the 'as far as we know caveat' (sic) because we may not know all of the employees present and past of ODM." 3. Let's take a look at the record. On October 15, 2002, Joshua Intervenors' lawyers filed a pleading entitled "The Joshua Intervenors ' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget" (Doc. No. 3686). The first paragraph of this pleading reads as follows: It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights (emphasis added). 841 4. Then, ten days later (on October 25, 2002), Joshua Intervenors' lawyers filed yet another pleading entitled "The Joshua Intervenors' Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff' (Doc. No. 3691), with the following first paragraph: On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2001 . Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this court. ( emphasis added) 5. The quotes in the two paragraphs above appear to establish beyond peradventure that Joshua Intervenors' lawyers represented an employee of the ODM in October of 2002 . Furthermore, the Order entered yesterday makes it clear that this is exactly the type of information to be disclosed. 6. The March 18, 2004 letter asserts that Joshua Intervenors ' lawyers do not know the identity of past or present ODM employees. I do not want to practice law for any party, but I believe that, if I were in this situation as a lawyer, I would call or write the ODM and get a complete list of these employees. 7. I have reviewed the Order entered yesterday again -- after receiving the fax letter from Joshua Intervenors' lawyers today -- and I must immodestly admit that I believe it is a model of clarity. It can be faulted, if it is to be faulted at all, for redundancy; but I intentionally made it longer than I normally would so that it would not be misunderstood. 8. Joshua Intervenors' lawyers should carefully check their memories and records to determine if they represent, or have represented, any other employees of the ODM ( other than Ms. Bryant). Likewise, counsel for the other parties should do the same. Once this is done, 2 counsel for each party should proceed to prepare a pleading which will comply with the remainder of yesterday's Order. r--1-f IT IS SO ORDERED t~is Ji day of March, 2004. 3 !))~ fl_UuJ,v_ UNifED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WM. R. W ILSON, JR. MAR.18.2004 10:19AM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATroRNEY AT LAW 1723 BRoADWAY 1rrrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELE!&gt;SONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 874-4187 March 18, 2004 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. 423 U.S. Post Office &amp; Courthouse 600 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: NO.498 OF COUNSEL ROBERT MclIENRY, P.A. . DONNA J. McP.ENR'f 8210 HE!IDERSON RoAO L1'rrLE RoCK, .AJlxt.NS . .'J! 72210 P!!ONll: (601) 372-342/i F,IA (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: =-hinuyd@swbell.uet RECEIVED MAR 1 8 2004 (j'm . R : Wilson, Jr E i- District Judge of Arkansas I am writing to provide the Court a preliminary report in reply to the Order herein dated March 17, 2004. The Order appears to invite, if not require, a responsive pleading. By this letter I am requesting further instruction as to the form the expected final response should take. With respect to question one (1 ), I have spoken with the other attorneys associated with me, including those not in my firm as such, and inform the Court that the answer we provide is that we do not represent any me!!).j:i_~r of the ODM staff present or past~ far as we k.now. I add the "as fu as we know cave ~t" because we may not know all of the employees present and past of ODM. There was 9. period when I believe ODM employed certain e;,,,.-perts and there may have been some part-time or temporary employees hired from time to time by ODM. With respect to the other questions I do not believe them to applicable in view of the answer to proffered question number one, Moreover, questions three through five invite, if not direct, responses to any imaginary hypothetical situation. I therefore cannot provide an answer to a question which I do not fully comprehend and which is not before me in an actual case. I do wish and intend to reply to the Court, however. Accordingly, I request clarification regarding me last three questions. In making the above report I recall that Judge Susan Webber Wright observed that ODM was not represented by counsel at which point she invited me to begin the questioning of ODM. The position that we took at the hearing on behalf of Joshua was consistent with OD M's and contrary to LRSD's. The hearing about which I speak involve extensive inquiries into LRSD's budgeting process and th.at occurred some seven or eight years ago. I deemed it proper men., as I do now, to reply to the Court. Our position was that LRSD was not meeting its budgeting obligations, ODM staff presented expert testimony to that point which I generally elicii:ed and LRSD opposed it. MAR.18.2004 10=19AM Page Two March 18, 2004 JOHN W WALKER PA N0.498 This is our best understanding of how to reply to the Courr' s Order but if our understanding is incomplete, I respectfully request further guidance from the Court for the Joshua counsel. JWW:lp cc: All Other Counsel (fax only) The Honorable J. Thomas Ray R~spectli;llY su)imitte'7, ;~~ 1-rD/ ~'7l t/i John W. Walker "Li TO: DATE: FAXCOVERSHEET - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Telephone: 501-604-5140 Fax Number; 501-604 5149 Chris Heller 376-2147 Sam Jones 376-9442 Steve Jones 375-1027 John Walker 374-4187 Robert Pressman 781 -862-1955 Timothy Gauger 682-2591 . Mark Hagemeier 682-2591 Ann Marshall 371-0100 Mark Burnette 375-1940 "3. / B- O'f c~ e,u~~./, ~ .:~ ;;-~ There are__ pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. MESSAGE SENT BY: ~/--- ?Z-rrr-- Office of Judge Wm. R. Wi on, Jr .. U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Matt Morgan, LRSD Law Clerk 501-604-5141 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 1 8 2004 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK CLER' By: ' I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 1 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Pending is separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw Counsel and For Substitution of Counsel (Doc. No. 3839). Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education requests that Mr. Dennis Hansen be withdrawn as counsel since he is no longer actively participating in the day-to-day litigation at the Attorney General's Office. Defendant requests that Mr. Mark Hagemeier be substituted as counsel of record. For good cause shown, separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw Counsel and For Substitution of Counsel is GRANTED. (7--r;,::. IT IS SO ORDERED this / 0 day of March, 2004. 842 DEP CLER: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT - rlAEL E. GANS Clerk of Court Mr. Will Bond BOND &amp; O'BRIEN 602 W. Main Street Jacksonville, AR 72076 THOMAS F. EAGLETON COURT HOUSE ROOM 24.329 111 S. 10TH STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63102 March 18, 2004 VOICE 1314) 244-2400 FAX (314) 244-2780 www.ca8 .uscourts.gov RECEuVED MAR 2 ;- 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: 03-3088 Re: 03-3404 Greg Bollen vs. Lorene Joshua Pulaski Cty . School vs. Greg Bollen Dear Counsel: The court has decided that they will hear this appeal via telephone conference sometime in May. The exact date will be determined at a later time . If you have any conflicts during the month of May, please bring them to our attention at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. tab cc : John W. Walker Rickey H. Hicks Robert Pressman Clayton Roy Blackstock Mark Burnett M. Samuel Jones III Sam Jones Scott Smith Christopher JoH~ellne . Stephen w. Jones Ann Marshall Timothy Gauger Sincerel Trish Calendar Coordinator District Court/Agency Case Number(s) : 4:82-CV-866 WRW RECEIVED MAR 2 3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE March 22, 2004 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed the Response to Court Order by Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education which we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of2 March 22, 2004 MAH Enclosures Very truly yours, ~ ~~y Assistant Attorney General UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for its Response to Court Order dated March 17, 2004, state: 1. Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM") - supplied the Office of the Attorney General with a list of past and present employees. 2. Undersigned has circulated this list of past and present ODM employees to attorneys within the Office of the Attorney General who have worked on this matter. 3. Tim Gauger, Dennis Hansen, and Mark Hagemeier have never represented a past or present employee of ODM. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General MARK A. HAG IER, #9 Assistant Atto:; en:l 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 ---- ----- -------------------- - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this ;}-;). day of March 2004, addressed to: Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hageer 2 Rec Er 67ED MITCHELL, BLACKSTOCK, BARNES, WAGONER, IVERS AND SNEDDON, PLLC MA\ 2 ~1 2004 Dr:S'" OFFICE OF EUGENE R. WARREN (1909-1980) MICHAEL W. MITCHELL* CLAYTON R. BLACKSTOCK** MARCIA BARNES JACK WAGONER III DAVID IVERS EMILY SNEDDON MARK BURNETTE OLIVER HAHN Mr. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. l 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ATIORNEYS 1010 WEST THIRD STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 378-7870 www .mbbwi.com Writer's e-mail: mburnette@mbbwi.com March 25, 2004 1: i:Gl1EG11T:O:, ?.lDi'fTDR!W~ MAILING ADDRESS P.O . BOX 1510 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-1510 TELEFAX 501-375-1940 *CERTIFIED IN CIVIL TRIAL ADVOCACY BY NATIONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY ** ALSO LICENSED IN TEXAS Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldrege &amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Ste. 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Ste. 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et. al. U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Ms. Marshail and Gentlemen: I enclose herein a file-marked copy of a Response to Court Order by Knight Intervenors. MTB/dm Encl. Very truly yours, Mark T. Burnette IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. FILED U.S. o:::~;:_ ICT COURT EASTER:, C,::;:,:..1..:-;- K-;.KANSAS MAR 2 5 2004 JAMES W. McCOri.:.,,.\SK, CLERK By:.---------;:;-=-;~;-;; C:::? CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY KNIGHT INTERVENORS Come the Knight Intervenors, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004, state: 1. Undersigned counsel obtained a roster of ODM employees and distributed the roster to all current attorneys in this firm. 2. No attorney client relationship has existed between any of the listed employees of ODM and an attorney in this firm. It may also be worth noting that Emily Sneddon, a partner in this firm, was employed as a law clerk in the office of the Honorable Susan Webber Wright during a period when Judge Wright presided over this case. Ms. Sneddon does not participate in the case in her current position. Respectfully submitted, Clayton Blackstock Mark Burnette MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK, BARNES WAGONER, IVERS &amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 By: 72:lMfl~/1/Yldtv Mark Burnette N # 88078 Certificate of Service A true and accurate copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the following by U.S. Mail, postage paid, on this.24"" day of March, 2004: ,;f.at?I Mr. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark Arnold Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol , Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 By: 2?kJ,/3trA21d/ Mirk Burnette BAR NO. 88078 R.ECEjVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE OF - ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED U.S. DI STRICT COURT EASTERN : STRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 6 2004 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ________ __,= PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. ("Joshua"), Intervenors herein, by their undersigned attorneys, submit this JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE To THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER and state the following: FACTS On October 15, 2002, Joshua filed a pleading entitled "The Joshua Intervenors ' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM1 Budget." Paragraph 1 of that pleading stated, "It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court (sic) is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court (sic) has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights." Oct. I 5, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget, 1. The "member of the ODM staff' referred to in that pleading is Linda Bryant ("Ms. Bryant"). Joshua did not file its pleading to seek individual relief for Ms. Bryant. Joshua' s sole purpose for filing the pleading was to gain access to documents and other materials so that 1 ODM is the Office of Desegregation Monitoring created by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1990. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. o. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1388 (8th Cir. 1990). Joshua could "make recommendations concerning or objections regarding the ODM budget and elements thereof, prior to their implementation." Oct. 15, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget ~~ 5(a), 5(b); see also Oct. 15, 2002 Mem. Concerning the ODM Budget. On October 16, 2002, the Court denied Joshua's motion without prejudice, holding it was premature. Oct. 16, 2002 Order. On October 25, 2002, Joshua filed a pleading entitled, "The Joshua Intervenor's (sic) Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff." Paragraph 1 of that pleading stated, "On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2002. Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this Court." Oct. 25, 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff~ 1. Again, the purpose of this particular pleading was not to seek individual relief for Ms. Bryant, rather, Joshua simply wanted the opportunity to provide its input into the budget of the ODM prior to the Court ordering a reduction of its budget. Oct. 25, 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff at 2. Holding that the motion for a stay was moot, the Court denied Joshua's motion the same day Joshua filed it. Oct. 25, 2002 Order. On March 17, 2004, the Court entered an order requesting each party's attorneys to answer the following questions: (1) Do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("employee is to be construed broadly regardless of job description)?"; (2) The Dates of any such attorney-client relationship; (3) Whether you deem it proper for a lawyer representing a party in this case to represent an employee of the ODM; (4) If you deem it proper, please explain your position in 2 exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority; (5) If you deem it improper, please explain your position in exact and plenary detail, with citations of authority." Mar. 17, 2004 Order. APPLICABLE LAW Before answering the Court's inquiries, a discussion of the applicable law is appropriate. On May 1, 1980, the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas adopted the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, codified at the Appendix to the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Rule IV.B of the Model Federal Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement provides in relevant part, " .. . The Code of Professional Responsibility or Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by this Court is the Code of Professional Responsibility or Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the highest court of the state in which this Court sits, as amended from time to time by that state court, except as otherwise provided by specific Rule of this Court after consideration of comments by representatives of bar associations within the state." In 1985, the Supreme Court of Arkansas adopted the American Bar Association 's Model Rules of Professional Conduct as the State of Arkansas's code of professional responsibility. Jones v. Clinton, 36 F. Supp.2d 1119, 1132 n.19 (E.D. Ark. 1999) (citing In re Arkansas Bar Ass ' n, 287 Ark. 495, 702 S.W.2d 326 (1985)). Thus, the Arkansas Model Rules of Professional Conduct is the starting point for analyzing the ethical duties of lawyers practicing before this Court. Model Fed. R. of Disciplinary Enforcement IV.B . In order to determine a lawyer's authority and responsibility, principles of substantive lav.r external to the .. 1odel Rules of Professional Conduct determine whether a client-la,.vyer relationship exists. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct~ 3. Most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal ,., .) - services and the lawyer has agreed to do so. See id. (emphasis added). But there are some duties, such as that of confidentiality under Rule 1.62 , that may attach when the lawyer agrees to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established. See id. Whether a clientlawyer relationship exists for any specific purpose can depend on the circumstances and may be a question of fact. See id; see also Cortinez v. Supreme Ct. Comm. on Profl Conduct, 332 Ark. 455, 464, 966 S.W.2d 251 (1998). The attorney-client relationship is not simply the casual assistance of a member of the bar, but is an intimate process of consultation and planning which culminates in a state of trust and confidence between the client and his attorney. Clements v. State, 306 Ark. 596, 607, 608, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991) (citing Smith v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles, 440 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1968); McKinnon v. State, 526 P.2d 18 (Ak. 1974); People v. Davis, 449 N.E2d 237 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983); In re Welfare of M.R.S., 400 N.W.2d 147 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)). 2 The text of Rule 1.6 provides: Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of information. (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraph (b ). (b) A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: ( 1) to prevent the client from committing a criminal act; or (2) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the !a,.,,yer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client. (c) Neither this Rule nor Rule 1.8(b) nor Rule l.16(d) prevents the lawyer from giving notice of the fact of withdrawal, and the lawyer may also withdraw or disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. 4 The relationship is not dependent only an express agreement, it may be implied on the part of an attorney who acts in behalf of his client in pursuance of a request by the latter. Sexton v. Supreme Ct. Comm. on Profl Conduct, 295 Ark. 141 , 147 (747 S.W.2d 94 (1988) (Hays &amp; Glaze, JJ., dissenting) (citing Hirsch Bros. &amp; Co. v. R.E. Kennington Co., 124 So. 344 (Miss. 1929); 88 A.LR. 1; 7A C.J.S. 169). Although the Model Rules are silent on the subject, the Supreme Com1 of Arkansas has stated that attorneys remain obligated to avoid any "appearance of impropriety." Arkansas Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2002-347 (citing Saline Mem'l Hosp. v. Berry, 321 Ark. 588, 906 S.W.2d 297 (1995); Burnette v. Moman, 303 Ark. 150, 794 S.W.2d _145 (1990)). Joshua will now turn to answering the Court's questions. I. JOSHUA'S ATTORNEY'S "REPRESENTATION" OF MS. BRYANT On or about October 14, 2002, Ms. Bryant informed Joshua's attorney that her employment with the ODM was about to be terminated and sought counsel regarding her legal rights. Oct. 15, 2002 Mot. for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget 1 1; Oct. 25 , 2002 Mot. to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff 1 1. When Ms. Bryant communicated her desire to have Joshua's attorney explain her legal rights to her, at that specific moment the duty of confidentiality codified in Model R. of Pro fl Conduct 1.6 was triggered. Scope, Model R. of Prof 1 Conduct 1 3. Upon learning where Ms. Bryant worked and what relief she was seeking, Joshua's attorney told her in unambiguous terms that he could not represent her and that she needed to look elsewhere Lu ublain representation. Joshua's attorney did not rendef any substantive advice, such as informing her of the statute of limitations or the remedies available to her or what administrative measures she had to take prior to obtaining judicial relief. 5 In fact, Joshua's attorney strictly followed Model R. of Profl Conduct 4.33 and gave Ms. Bryant no advice other than to find another attorney. Model R. of Profs Conduct 4.3 cmt. (comparing Rule 4.3 to American Bar Association rule DR 7-104(A)(2) and stating that a lawyer shall not give advice to a person who is not represented by a lawyer, other than the advice to secure counsel). Because Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant and offered no substantive legal advice in the course of declining the representation, most of the other duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship did not attach. Scope, Model R. of Prof! Conduct ,r 3 (stating "most of the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after the client has requested the lawyer to render legal services and the lawyer has agreed to do so") (emphasis added). Had Ms. Bryant communicated information to Joshua's attorney that was materially adverse to another party in this case (which she most certainly did not), it is arguable that Joshua's attorney would be barred from using that information by Model Rules 1.6 and l.7(b). Rule 1.7(b) provides, "A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests." In the instant case, nothing Ms. Bryant told Joshua's attorney could be reasonably construed to be adverse to the Joshua Intervenors or perhaps more importantly, to the ODM. The ODM is not a party to this case. In fact, Joshua and ODM's interests and efforts are often congruent in that Joshua and the ODM have a duty to monitor the 3 The text of Rule 4.3 provides: Rule 4.3. Dealing with unrepresented person. In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. 6 - school districts ' compliance with their desegregation obligations. Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. o. 1. 921 F.2d 1371 , 1388 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding, "As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of this opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Comi on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate"). In 1978 or 1979, Joshua's attorney was plaintiffs' counsel in a federal class action discrimination lawsuit against First National Bank in a case styled Raymond Smith v. First Nat'! Bank. Ms. Bryant was a member of the plaintiffs' class, but was not a named plaintiff or class representative. This representation lasted approximately two years and terminated prior to the filing of the instant case and nearly a decade prior to the OD M's creation. Thus, in answer to the Court's first query, Joshua's attorney owes a Rule 1.6 duty of confidentiality to Ms. Bryant stemming from her seeking his legal advice and his declining to give it in connection with her employment with the ODM, because an attorney-client relationship between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney formed for the period in which Ms. Bryant sought legal advice from Joshua's attorney. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct~ 3. That relationship, however, terminated when Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant, and that termination relieved Joshua's attorney of most of the duties that typically flow from an attorney-client relationship. See id. Joshua's attorney also owes a duty of confidentiality to Ms. 7 Bryant based on her membership in the class of plaintiffs in the Ravmond Smith case. That attorney-client relationship terminated over twenty years ago and preceded the filing of this case and the creation of the ODM. II. THE DATES OF JOSHUA'S ATTORNEY'S "ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP" Joshua's attorney's representation of Ms. Bryant in the Raymond Smith lasted from 1978 or 1979 until 1980 or 1981. Ms. Bryant's fleeting attorney-client relationship with Joshua's attorney in connection with her employment with the ODM occurred on or about October 14. 2002. The relationship terminated on that same date. III. THE PROPRIETY OF REPRESENTING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ODM This question is difficult to answer given the hypothetical nature in which it is posed. In essence, the Court is seeking an advisory opinion from the attorneys in this case. While the Court has the discretion to do this, exercising that discretion raises the same issues for the attorneys as the Court itself would face were the attorneys to seek an advisory opinion from the Court. An advisory opinion is one rendered when no justiciable case or controversy exists. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 93, 95 (1968). Under Article III, courts are required to "avoid issuing advisory opinions based upon hypothetical situations." Briggs v. Ohio Elections Comm'n 61 F.3d 487, 493 (6th Cir. 1995). A court's judgment "must resolve a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what th .. 1"'\" \"O"lrl ho "pen,, h" pothetic&lt;&gt;l cet of .::ark" prPicer 'I l\Te,,,lrirlr 4')') TT Q io.;; LI.QI (107&lt;;) \. J.J. ..... J.'-4'1' 'I' 1,,t.J.'-6. V .._,\A. J.\A.J.J J..1.1,..1.\A.._, 1;...,.,._,. J..._,.1.-.14 .4, ',f' .1.".1..1.J."-I ,;,..,,;,.., .._., ._,,_,_,,_,, I \ /I _,, Determining whether an opinion would be advisory is interrelated with the question of whether there exists a case or controversy. State of Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. United States Dep't of 8 Transp. 766 F.2d 228, 232 (6th Cir. 1985). The requirements of standing, ripeness, and mootness guard against the issuing of advisory opinions. See id. With that said, Joshua will answer the question based on the factual predicate set forth in Sections I and II of this pleading. Because Joshua's attorney declined to represent Ms. Bryant in connection with her employment with the ODM and in so doing fastidiously avoided rendering any substantive legal advice, the ephemeral attorney-client relationship created and terminated on October 14, 2002 does not conflict with any duties Joshua's attorney owes to any party in this case, another client, or Joshua's attorney's own interests. Model R. Profl Conduct l.7(b). This is so because the brief encounter between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney contained none of the elements that attend the conventional, substantive attorney-client relationship. Clements v. State. 306 Ark. 596, 607, 608, 817 S.W.2d 194 (1991). Thus, under this particular set of facts, there was and is nothing improper vis-a-vis the instant case about Joshua's counsel meeting with Ms. Bryant on October 14, 2002, listening to her request for representation, and declining to provide that representation. Likewise, Ms. Bryant's status a class member in the Raymond Smith does nothing to compromise Joshua's attorney's duties to any party in this case, another client, or Joshua's attorney's own interests. Model R. Profl Conduct l.7(b). This is so because that representation started and ended prior to the filing of the instant case and prior to the ODM's creation. Moreover, that representation did not involve any of the parties or issues in this case. Therefore, that former representation in light of this case was also proper. There are countless scenarios under which an attorney for a pa1iy in this case could be approached by an employee of the ODM seeking representation in myriad areas of the law, therefore, Joshua cannot opine on the propriety of representing an employee of the ODM in 9 representation and did not offer Ms. Bryant any substantive legal advice. Declining the - representation terminated the attorney-client relationship, thereby eliminating any potential conflict Joshua's attorney might have with another client, a third party, or any party to this case. Model R. ofProf'l Conduct l.16(a)(l), l.7(b). Joshua's attorney's representation of Ms. Bryant in the Raymond Smith does not create a conflict because it started and ended prior to this case being filed. Joshua hopes it has answered the questions put to it by the Court in a satisfactory manner. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ ,tp- ToM LU. John W. Walker Ark. Sup. Ct. Reg. No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206-1250 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Facsimile(501)374-4187 Robert Pressman Mass. Bar No. 405900 Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02421-5817 Telephone (781) 862-1955 not only that associate, but with the entire firm at least until the associate declines to answer the question or declines the representation. Scope, Model R. of Pro fl Conduct 13 . 11 every conceivable context different from the specific facts involving Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attomey4. Those are the only facts before the attorneys in this case per the plain language of the Court's March 18, 2004 Order. Mar. 18, 2004 Order 11 3-5. Given that, Joshua is inclined to follow the pattern of federal appellate courts and decline to answer anything more than the specific question put before it. Joshua's misgivings notwithstanding, in order to comply as fully as possible with the Cami's directives of March 17 and 18, 2004, Joshua can say that as a general matter, if a current ODM employee sought representation from Joshua's counsel, it would probably be prudent to decline that representation so as not to raise the specter of conflict with the intervenors. Model R. of Profl Conduct 1.7(b). On the other hand, if a former employee of the ODM sought representation for a matter unrelated to that person's employment with the ODM and unconnected from that facts and paiiies in this case, that representation probably could be undertaken. CONCLUSION An abbreviated attorney-client relationship between Ms. Bryant and Joshua's attorney began and ended on or about October 14, 2002 only because Ms. Bryant sought legal advice from Joshua's attorney. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct 1 3. Joshua's attorney declined the representation and did not offer Ms. Bryant any substantive legal advice. Declining the representation terminated the attorney-client relationship, thereby eliminating any potential 4 For example, Messrs. Jones and Mr. Heller work for large, full-service law firms with numerous partners, associates, and support staff. Presumably, any of their partners or associates could be approached by an employee of the ODM seeking advice on anything from domestic relations, tax, probate, or any other legal issue. Theoretically, that employee could approach a newly hired associate in a social setting, ask the associate for an opinion about something completely unrelated to the ODM or this case, and establish an attorney-client relationship with not only that associate, but with the entire firm at least until the associate declines to answer the question or declines the representation. Scope, Model R. of Profl Conduct 13. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, the undersigned attorneys for l'virs. Lorene Joshua et al., Intervenors herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoinfi JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 has been served this 261 1 day of March, 2004, by mailing a copy by First Class United States Mail to : Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 Stephen W Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon 1010 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2039 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3714 Dennis R Hansen Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 J,9tuYW. Walker Ko-bert Pressman 12 P.3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We, the undersigned attorneys for Mrs. Lorene Joshua et al., Intervenors herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregointf JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE To THE COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 has been served this 26 day of March, 2004, by mailing a copy by First Class United States Mail to: Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 M.SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon 1010 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2039 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3714 Dennis R Hansen Chief Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2610 John W. Walker Robert Pressman 12 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Christopher Heller JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAW 1 723 BROADWAY LITILE R OCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 March 26, 2004 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE /JF DESEGREGATiOU MO~{lf Cfi/NG OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. . DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON RO . .\D LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425 FAX (501) 372-3428 E~WL: mchenryd@swbell.net RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, et al. In The United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Case Number 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear Mr. Heller: Enclosed please find a file marked copy of JOSHlJA TNTERVENORS' RESPONSE To TI-lE COURT'S MARCI-I 17, 2004 ORDER. Please telephone me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you for your attention to this matter. TC Enclosures (1 ) Cc Robert Pressman Mark Burnett Stephen W. Jones M. Samuel Jones, III Dennis R. Hansen Ann Marshall IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER RECEIVED MAR 2 9 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATIOrJ f:10 NITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The PCSSD, by counsel, will address the five numbered paragraphs in the Court's Order of March 17, 2004, seriatim. 1. No. However, in approximately 1987, Gene Jones was the assistant superintendent for instruction in the PCSSD and the District's representative on the Magnet Review Committee which was then in its nascent stage. Mr. Gene Jones recalls that undersigned counsel helped prepare him for testimony on one occasion concerning Magnet Review Committee issues during that time period. 2. While undersigned counsel does not believe that the foregoing described episode arose to an attorney-client relationship, even as broadly construed, the episode occurred some time during 1987. Of course, this event predated the formation of the ODM by several years and predates Mr. Gene Jones' employment with the ODM by many years . 3. No. 487697-v1 4. Not applicable. 5. The ODM is an "arm of the court" and plays a special role in this institutional reform litigation. Accordingly, and especially if school counsel made a conscious decision to represent an employee of the ODM, then other parties could make a cogent argument that the school counsel is disqualified from further representation in the school case because he or she has effectively chosen to represent an employee of an entity directly connected to and originally created by this Court. (See generally Model Rule 1.7). From time to time in the past, one or more of the parties have sought to utilize either the reports of the ODM or testimony from ODM employees to make a point or further their position in these proceedings. Particularly under these unique circumstances, such representation as described in the Court's order should be avoided. Because the monitoring or recommendations made by the ODM can in fact influence the practices of a school district, or could have an affect upon the practices, presentations or positions of any party to this case, then discretion would seem to behoove that such representation be eschewed. Stated another way, if an employee of the ODM was represented by counsel to one of the parties in this case, and particularly if that employee was in a position to influence monitoring outcomes or recommendations to be made by the ODM, and if that counsel had an interest in either the monitoring outcomes or recommendations, then the representation of that ODM employee could present the appearance of impropriety. Particularly since the ODM occupies a high profile position, and presuming that the ODM desires to foster and maintain the trust of the public, any doubt about the representation should be resolved against accepting it. 487697-v1 2 This reasoning seems consistent with certain principles the Arkansas Supreme Court reaffirmed in First American Carriers, Inc. vs. Kroger Company, 302 Ark. 86, 787 S.W.2d 1669 (1990) . In that case, the Court reminded the legal profession that avoiding the "appearance of impropriety" was still part of the rules governing attorneys as established by prior decisions of the Supreme Court even though the previous ABA Code of Professional Responsibility had, by then, been replaced by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. As the Court explained: While Canon 9 is not expressly adopted by the Model Rules, the principle applies because its meaning pervades the Rules and embodies their spirit. It is included in what the preamble to the Rules refers to as "moral and ethical considerations" that should guide lawyers who have "special responsibility for the quality of justice". Another difficulty could arise as respects the budget of the ODM. The Court routinely refers the proposed annual budget to counsel for all of the parties for comment. If one of the lawyers in this case was representing one of the employees of the ODM, then there would be at least a tension between that representation and certain budget issues, including the proposed compensation for that employee or, particularly as this case "winds down", issues such as a reduction in force for the ODM or a curtailment of duties and responsibilities. While such developments might be to the financial interest of one or more of the parties to this case, those issues would likely conflict with the employees' own self interest. Another potential issue presents itself as respects the attorney-client privilege. (Please see the Law of Lawyering, Volume 1, 1.6: 103 @ page 137). It is conceivable that an attorney representing an employee of the ODM could acquire information useful to his "school 487697-v1 3 client" in this case. However, even if that information might have otherwise been discoverable through routine means, the fact that the attorney acquired it from his or her ODM client would likely (if not certainly) cause the privilege to attach thereby likely precluding the attorney from using the information that would otherwise be useful to his school client. The problem presented in this example is palpable. Id.@ 1.6:115@ 168.16 Another potential example suggests itself in these circumstances. For instance, the ODM client might confide to the attorney something like "School District Xis fudging on the numbers it is reporting to the ODM, but don't tell anybody." While the attorney might very well have ultimately figured out such a circumstance, and used it to his or her advantage in this case, the fact that he or she initially received the information in an obviously privileged communication is at best problematic. Since the information confided likely does not rise to - the level of a "crime" or "fraud" as discussed in the Code, (assuming the fudging is a product of sloppiness rather than intent) then more likely than not the attorney cannot use the information to the advantage of his school case client presumably to that client's detriment. See, for instance, the Law of Lawyering, 1.6: 105@ 148.2. As discussed generally in the Law of Lawyering, Id. @ 1. 6: 115 @ 168 .17, the examples given above could arise even in the context of a "one shot" consultation to which the privilege would attach, however briefly. Accordingly, it would appear to be clearly prudent to even avoid the potential circumstance of establishing an attorney-client relationship, however fleeting, by simply declining to discuss with any ODM employee any issue that could lead to the formation of the relationship. 487697-v1 4 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 26, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via facsimile and U.S . mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 487697-v1 5 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 487697-v1 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 6 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903 - 1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991 ) ALSTON JENNJNGS WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW (1917 -2004 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT , JR . JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. MARTIN G. GILBERT ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD , JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J, MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLEST. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR . WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADOEN JOHN O. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 - 3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www . wlj .com OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER GREGORY S. MUZINGO .. Writer ' s Direct Dial No . S0l -212 - 1273 mjones@wlj .com March 26, 2004 KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR . TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVI S CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER KYLER . WILSON C. TAD BOHANNON KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D, WILSON REGINA A. SPAULDING MARY ELIZABETH ELDRIDGE BLAKES . RUTHERFORD PAUL D. MORRIS LicaJ.Wtnpncticeb!JiJrrtMUnitiedSutes Patent UJd Tndi:rwrk Offic.e 0 J..icauf tn pnctk:e in M",cbipn only MAR 2 ~l 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREt:rnTIOM MONITOR!N0 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: Enclosed is a courtesy copy of the PCSSD response to the Court's order of March 17, 2004. Because of the Court's impending deadline, copies of being faxed to all counsel in this case as well. MSJ:ao Encls. cc/w/encls.: 488399-vl Cordially yours, WRIGHT, 6 Honorable J. Thomas Ray (via hand delivery) Mr. Robert Pressman (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) All Counsel of Record (via facsimile and U.S. Mail) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE , MAR Z : 2004 Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 March 26, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Counselors and Ms. Marshall: Please find enclosed AD E's Supplemental Response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004 that we filed today. 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 of 2 March 26, 2004 MAH Enclosure Very truly yours, Y1~-~ ~ MARK.A. HAGEr Assistant Attorney General UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MAP 1- r 2004 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEP ARA TE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comes now Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE"), by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, and for its supplement to its Response to Court Order dated March 17, 2004, states: ADE is and was unable to respond definitively to questions 3, 4, and 5 of the Court's Order dated March 17, 2004. ADE believes it lacks sufficient specific facts regarding any particular attorney-client relationship to respond definitively to these three questions. It appears from the Court's questions that the principal concern is that, if there was an attorney-client relationship between an attorney in the case and an employee of ODM, could confidential information have been divulged by that employee to that attorney. If during the attorney-client relationship the ODM employee divulged information to the attorney concerning ODM's or the Court's opinion or contemplated course of action on a subject relevant to this desegregation litigation, then ADE would certainly contend this was improper or, at the very least, created an appearance of impropriety. However, if the attorney-client relationship had nothing to do with this desegregation litigation and if no confidential information was disclosed, then ADE might conclude the relationship was proper. It appears to ADE that there could be circumstances where an attorney-client relationship between an employee of ODM, which is an arm of the Court, and a lawyer or a member of lawyer's firm representing a party in this case could be appropriate. For example, if an ODM employee requested services for an adoption, a will, or a criminal matter from one of these lawyers or their firm, ADE would not think this attorney-client relationship improper. ADE can also imagine, however, various situations that would run the gamut between these two extremes that might create an appearance of impropriety that the Court would want the ODM and its employees to avoid. In conclusion, separate defendant would want to know many more facts before it could opine on whether any particular relationship between an employee of ODM and an attorney in this case was improper or not. By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General R, #94127 Assistant Attorney Ge ral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this ;;)b day of March 2004, addressed to : Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3699 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 MarkA. ~eier 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO COURT'S MARCH 17, 2004 ORDER Comes the law firm of Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. , counsel for the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") and in response to the Court's Order of March 17, 2004 states as follows: 1. The law fi rm of Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. has co nducted a conflicts search regarding its representation of those individuals listed by Ms. Ann Marshall as having worked for the Office of Desegreation Monitoring in the email of March 19, 2004 from Ms. Ann Marshall , copy attached as Exhibit 1. 2. Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. has not represented any of the individuals listed in Exhibit 1. 3. Mr. Gene Jones was previously the Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for the NLRSD during the pendency of this litigation and while Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones , P.A. was representing the NLRSD. However, Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. has never represented Mr. Jones individually. 4. In addition , all attorneys at Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones, P.A. have been asked if they have any memory of any conversation with one of the listed individuals regarding any legal matter regardless of how casual the discussion. No attorney has any present memory of any such discussion occurring . By: 2 Respectfully Submitted , pN &amp; JONES, P.A. --- NW. JONES, #7 -083 425 West Capitol Avenu Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 "Ann Marshall" &lt;asbrown@aristotle.ne t&gt; 03/19/2004 11 : 19 AM To: &lt;sjones@jlj .com&gt; cc: Subject: FW: judge wilson's order Hello , Steve. Below are the e-mail exchanges I ' ve had with Chris and Sam re Judge Wilson ' s most recen o rders . I don ' t want to leave you out . At the very bottom is the list of those individuals who have worked for ODM, to the best of our knowledge. Als o , as I pointed out , all of us have at one time worked for ADE, LRSD, NLRSD , or PCSSD . Please let me know if you need any further information, and I ' l l be glad to do what I can. Ann -----Original Message----- From: Ann Marshall [m3ilt o :asbrown@aristotle . net} Sent : Friday , March 19, 20 0 4 10:47 AM To: Chris Heller Cc: mjones@wlj . com Subject : RE : judge wilson ' s order Sam , below is the lis t I sent Chris yesterday. For both of yo u , Chris and Sam , the complete name o f t he person whose last name I couldn ' t recall is Theresa Bradley, who wo rked as a receptionist in the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor . The name in the list below that reads "Jackie Bates " is actually "Ja c kie Banks , " who was also a receptionist and is deceased . In reply to your que s tion this morning , Sam, about Gene Jon es ' previous position: he was re ti red when I hired him in 1995. He had mos t recently been assis ta n t supe rin t endent for instruction in the NLRSD. Befor e that , he was dire c t o r o f secondary education and assistant superintende n t for instruction in PCSSD. He was also an associate director for instru c t ion at ADE and once director of t he Metropolitan Education Servi ces Center As a matter of fa c , every employee of t his o ffice , including me, at one time worked for ei t her ADE , PCSSD, LRSD, or NLRSD . Hope this info helps . I f you need more, just holler . Ann -----Original Me s sage -- - -- From: Chris Hel l e r [mailt~ : HELLER@fec .net] Sent : Thursday, March Jo , L004 6 :42 PM To: Alan Bryan; Ale;,:andra l r rah ; Amanda Ros e ; Angelia Chamberlin; Donald Ba con; J.C . Bake r; Darin 8a1.ron ; Tom Baxt e r; Bryan Duke; Robert Beac h ; Joe Bell; Paul Benha m; Bra ndon Ha rrison ; Lee Brown ; Bruce Tidwell ; Larry Bur~s ; Jim Buttry; Carol1n Wall a ce; Jim Clark; Allison Cornwell; Kevin Cra s s ; Coleman Wes:brou~ ; Qsrar Davis; Betty Demory; Walter Ebel; John Echol s ; Byron Ei sema n; r~: -~ Sardne r; Greg Mc Kee; Dave Graf; Will Gri f f in ; Jame s Ha rr is ; C~r:s H~l ler; Jason Hendren ; Dan Herrington; Fra n Hic ~man ; J o seph Hurst ; ~i-- ~ Hut chison; Jonann Con iglio ; Jamie J ones ; Joseph McKay; Jeff Moo r e ; Joey Nichols ; John Peiserich ; jpmsec ; James Smith ; Jay Taylor ; Kimber l y Dickerson ; Khayyam Eddings ; Karen Halbert; Kristen Rowlands; ScotL ~a~~~ste r ; H. T . Larzelere ; Chris Lawson ; Tom Leg ge tt ; Harry Li ght ; ' .. y:, ~"' ."o:!nson; Lindsey Mit c ham; Lois Dundee; Diane Mackey ; Phil Ma l c om; Mar - ~~ s~it h; Michelle At or; Marvin Childers; EXHIBIT ii Martin Kasten ; Mike Moore; Michael Moyers; Elizabeth Murray; Wyck Nisbet; Jane Oberste; Ellen Owens ; William PATTON ; Cliff Plunkett ; Ryan Bowman; Robert Smith; Shep RUSSELL ; James Saxton; Steven Brooks; Sarah Cotton; Robert Shafer ; James Simpson; Sam Macheak ; Laura Smith ; Carla Spainhour ; William Sutton; Tim Ezell; Tonia Jones; Scott Tucker ; Fred URSERY; William Waddell ; Guy Wade ; Dewey Watson ; David Wilson ; Wayne Young Cc: fendleyl@alltel . net ; asbrown@aristotle . net Subject : judge wilson ' s order lawyers - judge wilson has required that all lawyers in the pulaski county school desegregation case answer , among others , the fo l lowing question : "do you or any member of your firm represent anyone who is now or has been employed by the office of desegregation monitoring ( ' employee ' is to be construed broadly regardless of job description ' )? " the current and forrmer odm employees i ' ve identified so far are : ann marshall (formerly ann brown) , gene jones, horace smith , polly ramer , margie powell , linda ~ryant, connie hickman, bob morgan , bill mooney , skip marshall , melissa gulden , arma hart , jackie bates and prentice dupins . in o r der to properly respond to j. wilson ' s order, i need to know about any communication with any of these people regarding any legal matter , whether or not you believe it amounted to "representation " . thanks . ch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, doe hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid , this 26th day of March, 2004, addressed to the following : Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 -2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol , Suite 1895 3 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, L YoN&amp; JoNEs,P.A. HiECEi~VfED Offices I n: Conway, Arkansas Nashville, Tennessee Mark A. Hagmemeier Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 375- 1122 Telecopier (501) 375-1 027 March 26, 2004 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, Ill Wright, Lindsey, &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol , Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201 -3493 Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: MAR 2 f: 2004 Enclosed please find North Little Rock School District's Response to the March 17, 2004 Court Order which is being filed with the Court today. SWJ:tl Enclosure Sincerely, ~9~ MAR 3 0 2004 JAMES W. l\.!ic:COf~L :.\CK, CLERK By- -------,=--- DEP CLER!( THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 30, 2004 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Gene Jones Associate Monitor UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRlCT OF ARKAl'fSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRlCT NO. 1, et aL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et aL KATHERINE K.i~GHT, et aL 4:82CV00866 RECEIVED MAR 01 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDAl~S INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 17, 2004 I entered an order directing the lawyers to provide information and give me opinions with respect to representation, or potential representation, of members of the ODM by lawyers representing a party in this lawsuit. It appears that each party agrees that it would be improper, in almost all instances, for a party to represent a member of the ODM Accordingly, the parties and their lawyers are directed to notify the Court immediately if a lawyer for a party undertakes to represent a member of the ODM briefly or for the long haul. "Representation" is to be construed broadly as is set forth in the order ofMarch 17, 2004. Incidentally, judges are prohibited from rendering "advisory" opinions; on th~ other hand lawyers probably spend ninety percent of their time rendering advisory opinions to their clients and courts. r_lr IT IS SO ORDERED this ti day of March, 2004. United States District Judge 852 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of 'Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-422 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. SamuelJones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 TOM COURTWAY Interim Director State Board of Education JoNell Caldwell, Chair Little Rock Shelby Hillman, Vice Chair Carlisle Sherry Burrow Jonesboro Luke Gordy Van Buren Calvin King Marianna A Lawson s'Ponvi ii e MaryJane Rebick Lillie Rock Diane Tatum Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland 4.rkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 March 31, 2004 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 http:/ /arkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED APR - 1 2004 . OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of March 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2004. Respectfully Submitted, , - ( ~ ( ' I M4&lt; Jt,;j-t,_ cottSmith, #92251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of :Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Scott Smith, certify that on March 31, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ------------ ---------------~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31, 2004 Based on the information available at February 29, 2004, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 03/04, subject to periodic adjustments. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.</dcterms_description>

</dcterms_description>

</item>
</items>