Correspondence from Lucas to Judge Roth
Public Court Documents
December 10, 1971

1 page
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Correspondence from Lucas to Judge Roth, 1971. a69c8192-52e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4d946039-8990-40b1-a060-d3e919ea293b/correspondence-from-lucas-to-judge-roth. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
R A T N E R , S U G A R M O N & L U C A S P H O N E ( 9 0 1 ) 5 2 3 - 8 6 0 1 A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W S U I T E 5 2 5 M A R V I N L . R A T N E R R . B . 8 U G A R M O N , J R . L O U I S R. L U C A S W A L T E R L . B A I L E Y , J R . I R V I N M . S A L K Y M I C H A E L B. K A Y W I L L I A M E . C A L D W E L L C O M M E R C E TITLE B U I L D I N G M E M P H IS . T E N N E S S E E 3 8 1 0 3 December 10, 1971 B E N L . H O O K S OF COUNSEL Honorable Stephen J. Roth United States District Judge 600 Church Street Flint, Michigan 48502 RE: Bradley, et al. v. Milliken, et al., Civil Action No. 35257 Dear Judge Roth: We are in receipt of the Consent and Stipulation to Substitution of Counsel and the proposed Order for Sub stitution filed by Mr. Curtner in the above matter. We, of course, have no objection to the addition of counsel for the Detroit Board defendants. But for the reasons set forth in our letter of November 26, 1971 ( a copy of which is attached hereto) we continue to have reservations about the withdrawal of present counsel. If the Court and the parties could be assured in writing by new counsel for the Detroit Board that no delay with regard to any matter in this cause will be sought because of the substitution of counsel, plaintiffs would withdraw their objections. Respectfully submitted, LRL:pww cc: George E. Bushnell, Jr., Esq. Eugene Krasicky, Esq. George T. Roumell, Jr., Esq. Robert E. Manley, Esq. Theodore Sachs, Esq. Alexander B. Ritchie, Esq. Enclosure