King v. Palmer Brief Amici Curiae

    CASE SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IN REHEARING 
EN BANC ON FEBRUARY 27, 1991

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 89-7027
Cross Appeal No. 89-7028

MABEL A. KING 
Appellant, 

v .

JAMES F. PALMER, DIRECTOR 
D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE. THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC., THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND, THE WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, THE 
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 

LAW, THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
AND THE WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF LAWYERS

Laurel Pyke Malson 
David A. Bono 
ONEK, KLEIN & FARR 
2550 M Street, N.W. 
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 775-0184

Attorneys for Amici Curiae
C.A. No. 83-1980

Dated: November 13, 1990



ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

Julius LaVonne Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600 
New York, NY 10013
E. Richard Larson 
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
634 South Spring Street 
11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Joseph M. Sellers 
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE 
FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 
1400 I Street, N.W.
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005

Donna Lenthoff 
WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 
2000 P Street, N.W. Fund 
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036

Gregory O'Duden 
Elaine Kaplan 
Timothy Hannapel
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
1730 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Paul M. Smith
WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF LAWYERS 
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036



CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL REQUIRED BY RULE 11(e)(5)

Counsel hereby certifies that this separate brief amicus 
curiae is necessary to present and elaborate on arguments 
concerning the necessity of risk enhanced fee awards under § 

706(k) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 
and similar fee-shifting statutes. Counsel further certifies 
that, because the interests of these amici differ from those of 
other amici, who focus on separate issues, all amici have not 
been able to join in a single brief.



RULE 11(a)(1) CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS,
AND RELATED CASES

(A) Parties and amici
Appellant and plaintiff below is Mabel A. King. 

Appellees and defendants below are James F. Palmer, Director of 
the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, and the 
District of Columbia. The following parties have moved to be 
recognized as amici in this Court: the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Inc., the Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, the Women's Legal Defense Fund, the Washington 
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the National 
Treasury Employee's Union, the Washington Council of Lawyers, the 
American Bar Association, Joel P. Bennett, Lynne Bernabei, John 
M. Dorsen, Daniel B. Edelman, Bruce A. Fredrickson, Kator, Scott 
& Heller, Jane Lang, Elliott C. Lichtman, Squire Padgett, Inez 
Reid, Larry Sherman, Gary Simpson, and Robert M. Weinberg.

(B) Rulings under review
The rulings under review are listed in the Brief for the 

Appellant.

(C) Related cases
Related cases are listed in the Brief for the Appellant.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................................  ii

INTEREST OF AMICI................................................ 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................      5

ARGUMENT.........................................................  6

I. CONTINGENCY ENHANCEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE
THE PURPOSES OF FEE-SHIFTING UNDER TITLE VII... .......  7

CONCLUSION......................................................  13

i



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page
Blum V. Stenson. 465 U.S. 886 (1984)....................  2, 9, 12
Bradley v. School Board, 416 U.S. 696 (1974)...................  2
Christiansburq Garment Co. v. EEOC. 434 U.S. 412 
(1978).......................................................  2, 7

Hensley v. Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424 (1983)......................  2
Hutto v. Finnev. 437 U.S. 678 (1978)..... ...................... 2
Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes,
109 S. Ct. 2732 (1989).....................................  8, 9

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc.. 488 F.2d 714 
(5th Cir. 1974)........... ............................. ....... 2

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises. Inc., 390 U.S. 400 
(1968).................................     2, 7

New York Gaslight Club, Inc, v. Carey. 447 U.S. 54 
(1980)......................................................  8, 12

*Pennsvlvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens Council 
for Clean Air. 483 U.S. 711 (1987).........................  8, 9

Statutes
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (1982)...................................  8

Legislative History
110 Cong. Rec. 12724 (1964) (Remarks of Senator Humphrey).....  8
S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in. 1976 
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5908.................... ........  8

Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with an asterisk.

- ii -



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 89-7027
Cross Appeal No. 89-7028

MABEL A. KING 
Appellant, 

v.
JAMES F. PALMER, DIRECTOR 

D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE. THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC., THE MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FUND, THE WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, THE 
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 

LAW, THE NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION,
AND THE WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF LAWYERS

INTEREST OF AMICI
Amici are non-profit organizations that provide legal 

representation, either through direct services or through 
referral to lawyers in the private bar, for persons with 
potential claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as. 
amended, and other statutes that provide for fee shifting. In 
light of the breadth of experience which these organizations 
possess in this area, amici provide a unique perspective 
concerning the availability of competent legal representation for



individuals with such claims.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

("NAACP-LDF") is a non-profit corporation, incorporated under the 
laws of the State of New York. It was formed in 1939 to assist 
Blacks to secure their constitutional rights by the prosecution 
of lawsuits. LDF attorneys have handled cases involving the 
broad range of civil rights litigation, including numerous Title 
VII cases, and have also participated in cases in the United 
States Supreme Court and in many of the leading cases in other 
courts involving attorney's fees questions, both as counsel and 
as amicus curiae.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
(,,MALDEF,,) is a national civil rights organization established in 
1967. Its principal objective is to secure, through litigation 
and education, the civil rights of Hispanics living in the United 
States. With a litigation docket of more than 100 cases, MALDEF 
through its staff attorneys and volunteer cooperating attorneys 
provides legal representation to Hispanics who have been denied 
their civil rights. The degree and extent of this legal 
representation depends upon the receipt of market-based 
attorney's fees awarded under fee-shifting statutes.

1 E . q . , Blum v. Stenson. 465 U.S. 886 (1984); Hensley v ■ 
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 
(1978); Christiansburq Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978); 
Bradley v. School Board. 416 U.S. 696 (1974); Newman v. Piggie 
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968); Johnson v. Georgia 
Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).

2



The Women's Legal Defense Fund ("WLDF") is a non-profit, 
tax-exempt national organization that advocates for the 
advancement of women's rights and status before the courts and 
before legislative and executive policymakers. One of WLDF's 
primary goals is to ensure equal opportunity in the workplace, 
and to that end it sponsors a litigation program that challenges 
discrimination based on sex, primarily under Title VII, through 
volunteer and staff lawyers. In accepting cases, WLDF attorneys 
agree to seek only those fees awarded under the relevant fee- 
shifting statute.

The Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under 
Law ("Lawyers' Committee") is a non-profit, tax-exempt 
organization affiliated with the National Lawyers' Committee for 
Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers' Committee was founded in 
1968 to focus the resources and attention of the private bar on 
civil rights issues and other legal issues affecting poor people 
in this community. The Lawyers' Committee has represented the 
interests of thousands of minorities and women in claims of equal 
employment opportunity and fair housing arising under fee- 
shifting statutes. Neither the Lawyers' Committee nor the more 
than 100 law firms in the Washington Metropolitan Area which have 
served as its co-counsel charge clients for the professional 
services they render to civil rights claimants. Instead, the 
Lawyers' Committee and its co-counsel rely on court-awarded fees 
to compensate them for the representation they offer. The 
availability of attorney's fees is essential to the continued 
delivery of these legal services.

3



The National Treasury Employees Union ("NTEU") is a 
federal sector labor organization that represents approximately 
140,000 federal employees nationwide. In addition to serving as 
their collective bargaining representative, NTEU frequently 
conducts litigation in federal court on behalf of its 
constituents, seeking to vindicate their civil and constitutional 
rights, including rights arising under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, as amended. All of the Union's federal court 
litigation is conducted by a small staff of salaried in-house 
counsel who do not charge their clients a fee. B e c a u s e  i t s  
litigation activities are often funded by fee awards recovered 
from the litigation of contingent cases, including Title VII 
cases, NTEU has an important interest in the outcome of this 
case.

The Washington Council of Lawyers ("WCL") is a 
nonpartisan voluntary bar association founded in 1971, with 
members representing every sector of the Washington legal 
community —  lawyers and legal assistants from large and small 
firms, public-interest groups, government agencies, and 
congressional offices, as well as law students and members of 
law-related professions. The Washington Council is committed to 
the principle of equal access to justice for all citizens. As 
part of this commitment, the Washington Council regularly assists 
and supports several of the other amici in their efforts to 
provide representation to those with civil rights claims who 
cannot pay for counsel out of their own funds.

4



Because of their unique "clearinghouse" role for the vast 
majority of Title VII claimants in this community who are unable 
to pay an hourly fee for legal representation, amici are 
intimately familiar with the nexus between the availability of 
competent counsel and risk enhanced fee awards for prevailing 
plaintiffs. In view of their knowledge and experience in this 
area, amici believe they can provide valuable assistance not 
provided by the parties or other amici to the Court in addressing 
one of the issues presented in this case, i.e.. the substantial 
difficulty Title VII claimants would face in finding competent 
counsel in the absence of the prospect of risk enhanced fee 
awards.2

Moreover, because amici themselves represent plaintiffs 
in many cases brought under Title VII and other statutes that 
provide for fee shifting, amici have a very real stake in the 
outcome of this case. In amici's experience, there are 
significantly more cases that warrant further investigation and 
prosecution than there are lawyers with whom they can place these 
cases, leaving a substantial number of cases for amici themselves 
to press. As a result, amici devote their own limited resources 
to the litigation of these cases. Indeed, even after securing 
private representation for some claimants, because of their 
substantive expertise in these cases, amici frequently are asked

2 In compliance with Rule 11(e)(2) of the Local Rules of this 
Court, amici have not reiterated the arguments made by Appellant 
which address the other issues before the Court, but wish to 
advise the Court that they join in Appellant's arguments 
regarding these issues.

-5-



to remain in the case as co-counsel at their own expense. For 
many of these organizations, the revenues generated by fee awards 
greatly contribute to their budgets. But even with enhanced 
compensation, they can effectively service only a fraction of the 
potential claimants who look to them for legal assistance.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
To effectuate its legislative purpose of attracting 

attorneys to Title VII litigation, Title VII's fee-shifting rule 
must reflect the market practice in the Washington, D.C. 
metropolitan area of providing counsel with compensation that is 
enhanced for the risk of non-payment for the time invested. This 
compensation is important to non-profit organizations that refer 
clients to private attorneys because, in its absence, the 
uncontroverted evidence clearly shows that attorneys will be 
unwilling to undertake the task of pursuing Title VII claims.3 
This compensation is no less important to organizations such as 
amici who litigate these cases themselves. To the extent that 
non-profit organizations do represent claimants, either alone or 
as co-counsel with private attorneys, enhanced compensation 
allows these organizations to allocate their scarce resources to 
far more claimants than otherwise would be possible. Without the 
availability of risk enhanced compensation, it is clear that

3 The numerous affidavits and declarations presented to the 
District Court have been reproduced for this Court in the Joint 
Appendix. See, e.q.. Joint Appendix at 130-31 (supplemental 
declaration of George Chuzi).

6-



Title VII plaintiffs, as well as those with claims brought under 
other similar fee-shifting statutes, would face "substantial 
difficulties" finding legal representation from either the 
private or the public interest bar.

ARGUMENT
I. CONTINGENCY ENHANCEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE 

THE PURPOSES OF FEE-SHIFTING UNDER TITLE VII
With the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

in 1964, Congress adopted a broad public policy against
discrimination in the workplace. However, " [w]hen the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 was passed, it was evident that enforcement
would prove difficult and that the Nation would have to rely in
part upon private litigation as a means of securing broad
compliance with the law." Newman v. Piggie_Park— Enterprises,.
Inc.. 390 U.S. 400, 401 (1968). The Supreme Court has thus noted
that, in providing for a private cause of action for employment
discrimination, Congress cast the Title VII plaintiff in the role
of "a private attorney general," vindicating a policy "of the
highest priority." Christiansbura Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S.
412, 416 (1978). Indeed, history has borne out the significant
contribution made by private plaintiffs in the enforcement of the
Title VII mandate.

To encourage an individual worker and his or her 
representative to act as "a private attorney general" and police 
the workplace for discrimination, Congress found it necessary to 
"make it easier for a plaintiff of limited means to bring a

-7-



meritorious suit." New York Gaslight Club, Inc, v. Carey, 447 
U.S. 54, 63 (1980) (quoting remarks of Senator Humphrey, 110 
Cong. Rec. 12724 (1964)). Congress therefore enacted § 706(k) of 
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), which relieves an aggrieved 
party of the cost of hiring an attorney by shifting that burden 
to the pa r t y  found to have p e r p e t r a t e d  the illegal 
discrimination. As the Supreme Court noted last Term, "[i]t is 
of course true that the central purpose of § 706(k) is to 
vindicate the national policy against wrongful discrimination by 
encouraging victims to make the wrongdoers pay at law assuring 
that the incentive to such suits will not be reduced by the 
prospect of attorney's fees that consume the recovery." 
Independent Federation of Flicrht Attendants v. Zipes, 109 S. Ct. 
2732, 2736 (1989).

This fee-shifting provision serves its purpose by 
allowing a prevailing plaintiff to collect "a reasonable 
attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). A 
"reasonable attorney's fee," in turn, is one that is "adequate to 
attract competent counsel, but . . . [that does] not produce 
windfalls to attorneys." S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 
6, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5908, 5913.

Within this balance, Justice O'Connor, in her controlling 
opinion on the issue, held that it is necessary to "consider[] 
contingency in setting a reasonable fee under fee—shifting 
provisions." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley— Citizens— Council. 
for Clean Air. 483 U.S. 711, 731 (1987) (opinion of O'Connor, J.)

-8-



(Delaware Valley II).4 Specifically, the basic hourly rate is to 
be increased to account for contingency because enhancement is 
"necessary to bring the fee within the range that would attract 
competent counsel." Id., 483 U.S. at 733. This risk enhancement 
thus puts the plaintiff in a Title VII action on the same footing 
in attracting competent counsel as clients who are able to pay an 
attorney's hourly fee, which is what Congress intended when it 
provided for fee-shifting.

Moreover, in order not to prejudice such claimants, a 
reasonable attorney's fee award, including appropriate risk 
enhancement, is due a claimant regardless of whether he secures 
the services of a private attorney or a non-profit organization. 
As the Supreme Court held in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 894 
(1984), "Congress did not intend the calculation of fee awards to 
vary depending on whether [a] plaintiff was represented by 
private counsel or by a nonprofit legal services organization." 
In this way, the availability of competent counsel to prosecute 
the actions of "private attorneys general" can be assured.

In the collective experience of amici, most of whom refer 
cases to private attorneys for litigation, this risk premium is 
crucial to implementing Congress's purpose of encouraging private 
parties to mount their own Title VII claims. This conclusion was 
made abundantly clear by the numerous declarations filed with the

4 Although Delaware Valiev II specifically concerned fee-shifting 
under Section 304(d) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d), 
the Supreme Court has noted that all fee-shifting statutes with 
similar "prevailing party" language are to be interpreted alike. 
Zines. 109 S. Ct. at 2735 n.2 (citing cases).

-9-



District Court that have been reproduced for this Court in the 
Joint Appendix. For example, as Julius Chambers, Director- 
Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, stated 
in his declaration before the District Court, "many meritorious 
Title VII employment discrimination cases will not be brought 
unless a substantial fee enhancement above the normal hourly 
rates paid by noncontingent fee paying clients is given in cases 
where the plaintiffs are successful." Joint Appendix at 115-16.

Joseph Sellers, Director of the Equal Employment Program
of the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
quantified the difficulty of obtaining private counsel who are
willing to litigate referred cases. Between 1985 and 1987, the
program he directs reviewed 684 requests for assistance and
furnished legal representation together with private firms in
only thirty of them. In his experience,

private practitioners are increasingly 
reluctant to undertake representation in EEO 
cases on a contingency basis where the case 
will require significant expenditure of 
resources or will result in protracted 
litigation. Given the substantial investment 
of time and resources demanded by EEO cases in 
which compensation is contingent on success in 
the litigation, I believe that even fewer 
practitioners in the future will be available 
to furnish legal representation if there is no 
prospect of obtaining an enhancement for risk 
above the normal historic lodestar rate which 
is in fact adequate [to] f i n a n c i a l l y  
compensate practitioners for the risk of non­
payment .

Joint Appendix at 254-55.
These accounts are supported by the declarations of 

private practitioners which were filed in the District Court,

-10-



see, e.q . . Joint Appendix at 92 (declaration of Joel P. Bennett), 
and which also appear in the brief amicus curiae filed in this 
Court on behalf of several individual private practitioners. The 
attorneys upon whom amici rely to accept referrals of contingent 
fee cases assume substantial risks when they accept such cases -- 
risks that they increasingly are unwilling to accept in the 
absence of enhanced fees when they prevail. Without a pool of 
cooperating private attorneys willing to accept referrals, amici 
will be unable to service the vast majority of potential 
claimants who look to them for assistance in securing legal 
representation.

Amici's own experience with private counsel confirms the 
declarations presented to the District Court. Because employment 
discrimination cases are typically highly complex and costly, 
involve extensive discovery, and require the assistance of expert 
consultants, private attorneys are reluctant to accept them on 
referral from amici without some assurance of adequate 
compensation. This is particularly true when these cases involve 
the federal or District government as defendant. The virtually 
unlimited resources of governmental defendants, which are 
represented by a veritable army of tenacious lawyers, add to the 
already formidable disincentives that private attorneys find in 
representing even the most deserving plaintiffs. Given the 
substantial time and resources that have to be devoted to these 
cases, it is amici7s experience that private attorneys are only 
willing to accept them if there is a firm guarantee of a 
substantial contingency enhancement.

11-



Similarly, amici's experience as counsel for Title VII 
claimants, either alone or as co-counsel with private attorneys, 
underscores the compelling need for risk enhanced fees. For 
example, members of the National Treasury Employees Union often 
approach that organization to prosecute Title VII and other 
discrimination claims on their behalf in federal court against 
the government. However, the NTEU is able to assume 
responsibility for only a fraction of these federal court cases 
for many of the same reasons that private attorneys prove 
unwilling to litigate them. As with private counsel, the 
possibility of recovering an enhanced fee is a crucial 
consideration in NTEU's determination as to whether it can 
provide representation in federal court to victims of 
discrimination. Clearly, then, enhanced fees greatly further the 
common goal shared by Congress on the one hand, and amici and 
similar organizations on the other: "mak[ing] it easier for a 
plaintiff of limited means to bring a meritorious suit." New 
York Gaslight. 447 U.S. at 63.

Without fee enhancement, the reduction in the resources 
of amici and other similar organizations will impair their 
ability to handle even the limited number of cases for which they 
are currently responsible, with the result that meritorious suits 
will not be brought. Last year, the more than two million 
dollars in court-awarded attorney's fees collected by the NAACP- 
LDF represented approximately 17% of that organizations' total 
budget. Moreover, over 90% of the budget of the Equal Employment 
Program of the Lawyer's Committee is funded by court-awarded

-12-



attorney's fees. A reduction in these fees would, without doubt, 
reduce the capacity of these organizations to screen cases and 
litigate them. Simultaneously, it would increase the demand for 
their services, because a fee reduction would serve as an 
additional disincentive for private attorneys who are already 
reluctant to take these cases on referral. The result would be 
especially problematic for potential claimants who cannot afford 
to pay private attorneys' hourly fees and for organizations which 
serve the same population as amici. but which have other sources 
of significant funding, such as the government-funded Legal 
Services Corporation. In the end, it can only be the case that 
fewer employment discrimination claims will be brought, 
regardless of their merit, to the frustration of clearly-stated 
congressional purposes.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully request 

that the panel opinion be reinstated.
Respectfully submitted,

ONEK, KLEIN & FARR 
2550 M Street, N.W. 
Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 775-0184

-13-



Julius LaVonne Chambers 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600 
New York, NY 10013
E. Richard Larson 
MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
634 South Spring Street 
11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014

Joseph M. Sellers
WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR 
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 
1400 I Street, N.W.
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005

Donna Lenthoff 
WOMEN'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 
2000 P Street, N.W. Fund 
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036

Gregory O'Duden 
Elaine Kaplan 
Timothy Hannapel
NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION 
1730 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Paul M. Smith
WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF LAWYERS 
1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036

-14-



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 13th day of November, 1990 
two copies of the foregoing Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal 
Defense Fund, et al. was mailed first class, postage prepaid to

Robert M. Adler, Esq.
1667 "K" Street, N.W.
Suite 801
Washington, D.C. 20006
Bryan T. Veis, Esq.
Steptoe & Johnson
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Herbert O. Reid, Esq.
Charles L. Reischel, Esq. 
Donna M. Murasky, Esq.
450 - 5th Street, N.W.
Room 8C39
Washington, D.C. 20004