Letter to Rodak from Lucas RE: Van Dyke Brief

    MARVIN L. RATNER 

R. B. SUGARMON, JR. 

LOUIS R. LUCAS 

IRVIN M. SALKY 

WALTER L. BAILEY, JR. 

JAMES T. ALLISON

MICHAEL B. KAY 

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 

C. ANTHONY JOHNSON 

ELIJAH NOEL, JR.

R A T N E R ,  S U G A R M O N  &  L U C A S
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 525

COMMERCE TITLE BUILDING

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 3QI 03

February 1, 1974
PHONE (901) 525-8 6 0 1

Hon. Michael Rodak, Jr., Clerk 
Supreme Court of the United States 
Washington, D. C. 20543

Dear Mr. Rodak:

On this date counsel for Respondents Bradley, 
et al., in the above-numbered consolidated cases, were 
served with copies of a brief entitled "Brief of 
Respondent, Professional Personnel of Van Dyke." Pro­
fessional Personnel of Van Dyke was not a party to the 
judgment of the court of appeals which is on review in 
these cases, but was allowed to intervene in the 
district court by order of the court of appeals entered 
July 2, 1973. (See Van Dyke Brief at 16).

It is thus clear that Professional Personnel 
of Van Dyke is not entitled to file a respondent's brief 
in this court. At best, the Van Dyke brief should be 
treated as an amicus brief and,since it supports the 
position of the petitioners before this Court, the brief 
not filed within the time required by Rule 42(2).

Frankly, due to the multiplicity of parties 
involved in these cases, Respondents Bradley, et al., 
anticipated that a situation such as this might occur. We 
do not consider it worthwhile to file a motion to strike 
the Van Dyke brief, but we do wish to bring this situation 
to your attention. Should this, or any other inappropriate 
brief in support of petitioners, raise issues which we were 
unable to address in our own brief, we shall seek leave 
from the Court to submit a supplemental brief.

Louis R. Lucas
Counsel for Respondents Bradley, et al.

cc; William Ross, Esq.
John Bruff, Esq.