Correspondence from Lucas to Judge Roth

1 page

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Impact area
- Education
Topic
- School Desegregation
Matter
- Milliken v. Bradley
Case
- Milliken v. Bradley
U.S. state
- Michigan
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- cc9c8192-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0

Cite this item

Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Correspondence from Lucas to Judge Roth, 1971. cc9c8192-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/39adc434-b3a7-4a8f-b41d-2bc443675729/correspondence-from-lucas-to-judge-roth. Accessed November 28, 2025.

Copied!

    P H O N E  ( 9 0 1 )  5 2 5 - 0 6 0 1RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
A T T O R N E Y S  AT  L A W

S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G
M A R V I N  L. R A T N E R  

R.  B.  S U G A R M O N ,  JR .  

L O U I S  R. L U C A S  
W A L T E R  L. BAILEY,  JR.  

I R V I N  M. S A L K  Y 

M I C H A E L  B.  KAY 

W I L L I A M  E.  C A L D W E L L

MEMPHIS, T E N N E S S E E  3 8 1 0 3

B E N  L.  H O O K S  
o r  COUNSEL

November 26, 1971

Honorable Stephen J. Roth 
District Judge
United States District Court 
600 Church Street 
Flint, Michigan

The substitution of Counsel is ordinarily a matter
entirely within the purview of the party retaining that attorney. 
However, plaintiffs are concerned with the question of substi
tution of counsel insofar as it may affect the question of 
delay. In other cases and in particular, in school cases, 
courts have required counsel to remain in the case along with 
new counsel for such period of time as may be necessary for 
new counsel to be fully familiar with the record and the pro
ceedings. This is usually done on the basis that continued 
presence of counsel familiar with the cause will avoid delay 
in either the Court's docket or in effectuating constitutional

We would respectfully suggest that the Court defer
final action on the request of Mr. Bushnell to withdraw until 
tiiere is no possibility that a delay will be either requested or result from a change in counsel.

Re: Bradley V. Milliken, et al
Civil Action No. 35257

Dear Judge Roth:

rights

Respectfully submitted

LRL/wsc
cc: Eugene Krasicky

George E. Bushnell, Jr 
Theodore Sachs 
Alexander Ritchie

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Correspondence from Lucas to Judge Roth

Impact area

Topic

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in