Fall 1983 – Issue 30 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

RFAll 1983VOL. 18, NO.1Heroin Options / Savings & Loans / Board of Visitors / Law Fund AnnualReport

Cover:Supreme Court Justice William H.Rehnquist ('52) returned to campusMay 6 to judge the Marion RiceKirkwood Moot Court Competition(see page 50). With him here areLecturer Nancy Millich (left),advisor to the Moot Court Board,and Marilyn Drees (right), asecond-year student serving ascourt clerk. Justice Rehnquist wasan honored guest at the Board ofVisitors banquet that evening.Photo by John Sheretz

jah(e,oYCONTENTSSTANFORD lAWYEREditor: Constance HellyerAssociate Editor: Michele FoyerArt Director: Barbara MendelsohnStanford News and PublicationsProduction Artists: Linda Ruiz,Marco Spritzer, Ginny Mickelson,Mark A. Bonacorso, andSuzanne MathisonPhoto and art credits: page 67.FAll 1983VOl.18, NO IStanford Lawyer is publishedsemiannually for alumni/aeand friends of StanfordLaw School. Correspondenceand materials for publicationare welcome and should besent to: Editor, StanfordLawyer, Stanford Law School,Crown Quadrangle, Stanford,CA 94305. Copyright 1983 bythe Board of Trustees of theLeland Stanford Junior University.Reproduction inwhole or in part, without permissionof the publisher, isprohibited.Page 4Page 10FROM THE DEANBusiness Law vs. Public Interest Law: A False DichotomyJohn Hart ElyFEATURE ARTICLESHeroin for Addicts? Not the AnswerJohn KaplanThrift Institutions in a Changing WorldKenneth E. ScottPage 24Creative Retirement: Conversations with Five AlumniMichele FoyerAT ISSUEUnion "Rights" in the Fremont GM-Toyota PlantWilliam B. GouldCongressional Responses to Supreme Court DecisionsGerald GuntherPrison Labor: Time To Take Another LookByron D. Sher241016222426BOARD OF VISITORS ANNUAL MEETING 28SCHOOL NEWSFaculty NotesALUMNI/AE NEWSClass NotesIn MemoriamAlumni/ae GatheringsStanford Law SocietiesComing EventsLAW FUND ANNUAL REPORT475968899091Back CoverInsert

John Hart ElyAs you may have seen, thecover story of the May 22issue of The New York TimesMagazine about legal educationfocused on Stanford Law School.And although it was titled "TheTrouble with America's LawSchools," we actually came offpretty well.The thesis of the article was thatthe second and third years of lawschool tend to get boring and thatno one has really found a consistentlyeffective antidote-which iscertainly true. But, as the author·(David Margolick) grudgingly admitted,our faculty at least is hardat work on the problem, and of theschools that form the elite "innercircle" of legal education Stanfordhas the best chance of solving it.(Our innovative "Lawyering Process"courses and various simulated/clinicalofferings receivedmuch attention, both textual andpictorial, in the article.)~ Mr. Margolick also recognized that we have embarked~ this year on a program to help our students think about~ what they want to do with their lives, rather than auto­~ matically gravitating toward the most prestigious big­~ city law firm willing to hire them. The career planningmeetings that I and other faculty members have beenholding with students, and the modest loan program wehave instituted for those who want to spend one of theirtwo summers in some "alternative" form of employment,were described as what in fact they are- symbolic- butnonetheless valued as such..What Mr. Margolick didn't stress are the enormousstrides we are making in the area of Law and Business.Of course this is a program given renewed energy andfocus by Charlie Meyers, but this last year we have reallybegun to put it all together. As part of our reform of thefirst-year curriculum we have incorporated into the secondterm a new course in Economics and Finance Theory,which will function as a prerequisite for what we expectto be a very popular business law track in the upperyears. Thus our dream of having a genuine business sequenceis finally becoming a reality. (We will also give asection of Business Associations for those who have nottaken the prerequisite and do not desire such an intenselaw and business experience: "Corporations forCosmologists"?).More important are people. In addition to MyronScholes, the first joint appointment ever made by theLaw and Business Schools, we have added Tom Campbell,most recently Director of the Bureau of Enforcementof the FTC; Ellen Borgersen, most recently a partnerat Morrison & Foerster; and Bob Gordon, mostnoted as a legal historian but particularly interested inthe history of the American corporate bar (and, likeCampbell, teaching a section of Business Associationsthis coming year). Other good news is that the funding ofthe Ralph M. Parsons Chair in Law and Business wascompleted this year and Ken Scott was named its first incumbent,and Ron Gilson, one of the leading corporatelaw scholars of his generation, was promoted i#to fullprofessor.I know that when I was appointed Dean, some of youwere concerned that my commitment to the area of lawand business might be less deep than that of CharlieMeyers (who, I am bound to say, has gone a bit overboardto demonstrate the depth of his interest). It's truethat business law is not my field, * but it is one thattouches the careers of most lawyers, certainly of most ofour graduates, and we are further blessed by the presenceon our campus of a business school whose statusequals our own. I have therefore made it one of my chiefpriorities to insure that our business curriculum will beso far out front that people will be at a loss to say who's2 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Business Law vs. Public Interest Law:A False Dichotomysecond -something along the line that Charlie Mungerhas suggested to me: "The Best of the Stanford and HarvardBusiness Programs Combined, Improved, Condensed,with Dross and Twaddle Removed, but with AlmostAll Essential Areas Covered, and Related to the'World of the Lawyer."As I say, the recent strides we've made in the area oflaw and business are something Mr. Margolick doesn'tmention, and I honestly think the omission was meant tobe a favor. For, remember, his praise was for the gainswe had made (albeit too limited in his view) in clinicalteaching and public interest law initiatives. A simultaneouspush in the area of law and business apparentlystruck him as somehow inconsistent, and he was enoughof a gentleman to refrain from accusing us of schizophrenia.In fact the contradictions that some see among law andbusiness, public interest law, and clinical teaching arelargely imagined. Our initiatives on all three of thesefronts are quite intentional, and I am more than happy toidentify myself with each of them.It is true that clinical teaching has tended to be identifiedwith "poverty law," undoubtedly because it was alabel first attached to teaching done in conjunction withlegal aid clinics. It still is that at some law schools, and indeedit is partly that at Stanford. But clinical teaching atStanford, as the Times article does indeed make clear,has progressed far beyond the legal aid clinic model.Most of our clinical teaching is now done by simulation- thus eliminating calendar problems and genuineethical conflicts in which real people can get hurt, andinsuring an appropriate and controllable blend ofinteresting legal issues - and a good deal of it has nothingto do with "poverty law" (at least not overtly: more of thislater on). The first year Lawyering Process coursefeatures a wide range of legal situations, and there arewholly clinical offerings in areas as diverse as family law,real estate, and labor law. In short, clinical teaching, asthe name implies, is a mode of teaching: it designatesneither a specific subject nor a particular ideologicaloutlook. Skills learned clinically are transferable skills.But what about business law and public interest law?Aren't they both subject areas, as opposed to modes ofteaching, and aren't they, indeed, inconsistent? Nonsenseagain. In the first place, business enterprises are*The Times article quoted me to the effect that I personally would notbe most comfortable working in a large corporate law firm, and to thefurther effect that most members of the faculty probably also feel thatway. (That much seems obvious: after all, we're here rather than there.)As the context may not sufficiently indicate, however, this was said byway of rebutting the common student charge that somehow the facultyare engaged in a conspiracy to channel them into large firm practice.certainly capable of acting in what all would agree is "thepublic interest," and many would define generally keepingthe government offthe backs of free enterprise as apublic interest career. (I take it there are occasions onwhich all of us would agree that such a campaign isneeded, though obviously there is wide divergence onthe subject of how often they occur.) ,Let us, however, define "public interest law" more narrowly(and controversially) as the representation of intereststhat cannot, without charitable or governmentalaid, afford to hire representation for themselves (poorpeople, environmental interests, etc.). The dichotomyremains invalid. The same skills and even the same substantivedoctrines that one invokes to re'present thoseable and willing to pay can be equally valuable-indeedthey are indispensable - in the defense of those who arenot. It is a naive and dangerously ill-prepared lawyerwho supposes that commercial, business, and propertycourses are somehow irrelevant to the representation ofthe poor, let alone "the public interest." Beyond all that,as I note in my January 25 memorandum to the studentson "Exposure to Career 'Alternatives''': "Our professionis filled with examples of men and women whose basicallylarge firm practices have involved significant activity,intermittent or continuing, devoted quite explicitlyto serving the profession and the public." (Thismemorandum is reprinted in full on pages 53-55.)We therefore intend, without fear of contradiction, tocontinue strengthening our clinical teaching program tothe extent our resources permit (such teaching is in factvery expensive, primarily in terms of manpower) becauseclinical teaching, done right, is interesting andgood teaching, calculated to make effective lawyers ofall our graduates no matter what kind of practice theyelect. But we also intend, with equal vigor, to continue tostrengthen our programs in Law and Economics and inLaw and Business. The skills and knowledge impartedby these programs will also make more effective lawyersof all our graduates, no matter how they end up spendingtheir lives. Beyond that, we are aware, most of ourgraduates will be business lawyers for much of theircareers. That doesn't mean they can't also be public interestlawyers, and that too is an instinct we very muchmean to encourage.All that is by way of amplification and clarification ofthe Times article. I do have one criticism though, Mr.Margolick: my book is entitled Democracy and Distrust,not "Democracy and Discontent." Those less charitablethan I have suggested that that mistake epitomizes theaccuracy of the article as a whole. That's not fair: asI said, in Mr. Margolick's generally dismal world oflegal education, Stanford came out looking pretty good.It should.•Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer3

4 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

By John Kaplanjockson Eli ReynoldsProfessor of LowH 0FORDiet is not at all clear whyheroin should be the "hardest"drug. It is, after all, awhite powder indistinguishableto the eye from cocaine,mescaline, various amphetaminesand barbiturates,nicotine, and caffeine - some ofwhich are "soft" and others notpopularly considered drugs at all. Itis true that heroin is addicting, butthis complex property is shared bymany drugs we do not consider"hard" at all.In all probability, the hardness ofheroin, in the public view, stemsfrom a combination of factors: thecondition of those users who come toour attention; the public attitudetoward the kinds of people who usethe drug; the serious criminal penaltiesfor its sale or use; the strongsocial disapproval it evokes; and theenormous social cost to the nation attributedto its use.Estimates of these costs (rough atbest) run about ten billion dollars ayear, including the amounts stolenby addicts to support their habits;the cost of apprehending, processing,and imprisoning those whoseoffenses arise from the use or sale ofheroin; and the sums spent on thetreatment of addicts.This figure does not, by anymeans, reveal the entire cost ofheroin to our society. Nowhere dothe usual calculations account for theerosion of civil liberties and thepolice corruption related to attemptedenforcement of the heroinlaws; the diversion of large profits toorganized crime; the lowered qualityof life in large areas of our cities; andthe pain suffered by the families ofaddicts and, more directly, by the addictsthemselves.Probably the most popular suggestiontoday for lowering the costs ofheroin abuse in the United States isthat we should adopt what is thoughtto be the British system. We wouldthen make heroin legally available toaddicts at a very low price whilemaintaining the prohibition for salesto anyone else.Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 5

Obviously, if we could make such asystem work, it would have manyadvantages. A policy that allowedaddicts easy and cheap access to thedrug would free us from the coststhat we all suffer from making thequest for heroin so difficult. However,such a policy could also entailunknown but perhaps huge publichealth and welfare costs.What could we hope to gain byadopting a heroin maintenance program?And would the hoped-for benefitsoutweigh the probable costs?The British SystemBefore we look more closely at theadvantages and disadvantages ofheroin maintenance, it will be helpfulto describe what is often called theBritish system. Almost everyoneknows that the British treat heroinas a medical, not a legal, problem;hence, they make heroin available toaddicts under a prescription system.Unfortunately, like so much of whatalmost everyone knows, this is nottrue.Before 1914 (when the UnitedStates Congress passed the restric~tive Harrison Act), British andAmerican laws as to opiates weresimilar. Though Britain had, in 1868,restricted the right to sell opiates topharmacists, opiates were still freelyavailable and were widely consumedin tonics and as home remedies. Thedrugs were used not only to cure illsand to make people feel better, butalso to quiet children. In some areas,such as "the fens" around Cambridge,opiate addiction was quitecommon, but, though this was seenas a public health problem, it was notregarded as very important. As inthe United States, it was the pressureresulting from the internationalopiate traffic that required thatsomething be done about Britain'sown legal treatment of opiates.In 1920, Parliament passed theDangerous Drugs Act, a law which,on paper, seems strikingly similar toour Harrison Act of six years earlier.Most opiates were prohibited fromover-the-counter tonics, and it wasmade a serious criminal offense tobuy or sell such drugs outside ofmedical channels.As in the Harrison Act, the issue ofmedical maintenance of addicts wasunresolved, and even the languageof the two statutes was parallel. TheHarrison Act provided that opiatescould be supplied by a physician only"if in the practice of his profession,"while the British law allowed a physicianto supply opiates "so far onlyas is necessary for the practice of hisprofession."The crucial difference, however,came with the interpretation of thesewords. Unlike the American authorities,who successfully moved to preventany maintenance on opiates, theBritish appointed a distinguishedcommittee of physicians to look intothe question. The commission recommendedthat addiction should betreated simply as a medical complaintand that physicians be allowed,under very general guidelines,to prescribe opiates for themaintenance of their addicted patients.The authorities enforcing the lawnot only acquiesced in this view but,in practice, left the occasions of6Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

maintenance almost entirely up tothe physicians. As a result, under theBritish approach, addiction becamea matter between the addict and hisphysician. The doctor would prescribemorphine or heroin and theaddict'would obtain his supply froma pharmacy just as he would anyother medicine.The situation endured essentiallywithout change until the 1960s. Bythat time, many American authoritieswere convinced that Britain had"the answer." And even those whodisputed whether heroin maintenancewould work in the UnitedStates tended to agree that Britain'ssystem was working quite well inthat country.There were only a few hundred addictsin the whole nation. Thesewere overwhelmingly medical addicts,who had become addicted duringa course of treatment with opiates-often for chronic pain. Theydid not use drugs for euphoria anddid not seem particularly inclinedtoward crime. Probably most significant,they did not belong to any addictsubculture; indeed, most addictsdid not even know another addict.Not only did the addicts themselvesseem to adjust well to heroinmaintenance, but there were societalbenefits as well. Because of the lowprice of the drug, no addict had tosteal or sell drugs to maintain hishabit.In addition, the heroin maintenancesystem was credited with havingprevented the development of anillegal market. Since addicts couldobtain heroin quite inexpensivelyfrom their private physicians, andthen, after World War II, virtuallywithout cost from the NationalHealth Service, it was believed thatno profit could be made from traffickingin the drug.Of course the system was not foolproof.The addict could conceivablysell a part of his supply, if he wishedto and could find a buyer. And the individualphysician had to be trusted,for the benefit both of his patient andof society, to hold down the levelof his opiate prescriptions to theamount needed to sustain the addict'shabit. Nonetheless, by all accountsthe system worked well untilthe early sixties. Then it began tobreak down.The Breakdown of the SystemIt has been said that the problem wascaused by a few American-style addictswho came to Britain fleeing anew Canadian law which sharply increasedthe penalties for drug violations.Others have argued that thesocial use of heroin was a culturalinnovation imported from theUnited States.Perhaps the most important factorwas the development of a youthculture which was, for the first time,large and affluent enough to developcertain folkways of its own in oppositionto the dominant older culture.This style not only included clothing(Carnaby Street) and music (the BeatIes),but the recreational taking ofmarijuana, "pills," and, to a limitedextent, opiates.In any event, it is now clear that arelatively small number of youngmen who centered their lives on opiatetaking and dealing, aided by aconsiderable degree of naivete orsimply profiteering on the part of afew British physicians, quicklydestroyed the British system as itthen existed. The new-style addicts,it turned out, could often inducephysicians into prescribing considerablymore than needed to sustaintheir habits, and they were able tofind ready purchasers for the surplusamong their friends. Between 1961and 1969 the number of British addictsincreased more than fivefold,and, perhaps even more significant,the kind of addict changed dramatically.The new addicts were youngerand less stable and had values verydifferent from those of the medicaladdicts who had previously been thegrist for the system. While the totalnumber of addicts in Britain stillamounted to only about threethousand- a figure which could bematched in a five-block area ofHarlem - the public becamealarmed; a commission was convokedto look into the problem; and,in 1967, Parliament made majorchanges in the system.The most important change wasthe withdrawal of the ordinaryprivate physician's power to prescribeopiates for the maintenance ofaddicts. Only physicians speciallylicensed for the purpose could nowdo this. Moreover, though somegeneral practitioners were in factlicensed to do so, the prescription ofheroin or morphine to maintain addictssoon became restricted, as apractical matter, to a number ofhospitals and clinics - of which thethirteen in London handled the greatbulk of British addicts.These clinics were staffed by physicianswho quickly became specialistsin heroin addiction and whotended to be considerably more suspiciousof addicts' stated requirementsthan individual practitionershad been. The clinic physiciansrecognized that their responsibilitywas not only to their patients but tosociety as well. They tried very hardto make sure that their patients usedand did not sell the heroin they hadprescribed, refrained from the use ofother illegal drugs, and held steady,noncriminal, employment. The preferencewas still that the addict beweaned away from his drug, but itwas understood that he would continueto receive his heroin if he madea tolerable adjustment.So far as we can tell, the switch tothe clinic system was, for the mostpart, successful. The explosiveFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer7

growth of heroin addiction washalted, and the success of the clinicsat reducing diversion of prescribedheroin is shown by a doubling of theprice of the drug on the illegalmarket in 1968, when the clinicsystem took hold.In recent years, however, therehas been yet another major alterationin the British system. Unlike the1967 change, which was the result ofa new statute amidst considerablepublicity, this one has been the productof a gradual and almost unnoticedevolution. The pressurestoward greater social control over anew and more refractory kind of addict,together with a feeling that, byand large, oral methadone was asafer and more therapeutic maintenancedrug than injectable heroin,have caused the clinics to maintainfewer and fewer addicts on heroinand to substitute methadone instead.The extent to which this has occurredwould surprise those who stillbelieve in the unique "Britishsystem." One study of two Londonclinics showed that only five of 2258addicts under treatment were receivingheroin. Another clinic entirelydiscontinued prescribingheroin when the staff decided thatthe major reason they were stillmaintaining a few patients on thatdrug vvas to impress visitingAmericans.Even the few clinics that still maintainany number of addicts on heroinor morphine do so under a kind ofgrandfather clause. Those patientswho were started on such drugswhen they originally were treatedfor addiction, and have made whattheir physicians regard as a good adjustment,may continue to receivethose drugs.New addicts, those who have returnedto the clinic after temporarilydropping out of treatment, and thosewho have not adjusted in the sensethat they have remained unemployedor been in trouble with thelaw, have been placed on oral methadone,often over their strenuousobjections. In short, as a practicalmatter, the "British system" ofprescribing heroin to maintain addictsis no more.The Relevanceof the British ExperienceOf course, the fact that Britain hasabandoned heroin maintenance doesnot in itself mean other nationsshould not try it. After all, the Britishmay simply have made a mistake.On the other hand, one might arguethat even if the British were correctin abandoning maintenance in theircountry, conditions in our quite differentcountry may be more favorable.However, most observers (includingthe author) believe the opposite-that conditions in this country areless, not more, favorable to a heroinmaintenance approach. For one,heroin addicts in Britain andAmerica are very different kinds ofpeople, and were even more so whenthe British system was most conspicuouslysuccessful. A far higherpercentage of British addicts weremedically created, while many moreAmerican addicts initially usedheroin for pleasure. Similarly, mostAmerican addicts h~"'1 criminalrecords before their .-, rst use ofheroin, while this is true of a much8Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

smaller percentage of British addicts.White youths are overrepresentedamong British addicts, whileethnic minorities are overrepresentedamong American addicts.Another important but often-overlookedpoint is that medicine is practicedquite differently in the twonations. Heroin maintenance fitscomparatively well into an organizedsystem of health delivery such as theNational Health Service. Our presentanarchic medical system mayhave some advantages over socializedmedicine, but a number of commentatorson the British systemhave pointed out how much easier itis to care for heroin addicts in a clinicsetting where a wide variety of otherailments are also treated, and in asystem which also cares for themany health needs of addicts apartfrom their maintenance.Finally, the number of addicts inthe United States is so much largerthan the number that British heroinmaintenance has ever coped withthat the changes in the scale of theproblem might produce genuinedifferences in kind.In short, though the British experiencewith heroin maintenanceprovides us with a considerableamount of arguably relevant data, itis not very helpful in decidingwhether the United States should attemptsuch a system. Perhaps themost reliable conclusion we candraw is that our heroin problemswould probably be fewer today hadwe begun some kind of opiatemaintenance at the time we passedthe Harrison Act. Turning back theclock and starting from that point asecond time is obviously impossible,however, so we must consider thecosts and benefits of heroin maintenancein today's world.Heroin Maintenance OptionsHeroin maintenance is an extremelyplastic concept. As the British ex-perience indicates, relatively smallchanges in the method of implementation-such as the shift from prescriptionby private physicians tothat by specialized clinics - mayresult in very different consequences.Let us look at two quite differentways of maintaining addicts onheroin- the prescription system andthe use-on-the-premises system. Aswe will see, each of these has its ownproblems. Afterward we will examinethe more complex policyissues related to any governmentnarcotics maintenance program.The Prescription SystemAt the one extreme, we might followthe pre-1967 British system andsimply allow any private physician toprescribe heroin for the maintenanceof his addict patients. This measurewould be unlikely to work, since itfailed even in Britain. Rather thanopen ourselves to the charge of settingup a straw person, then, let usadopt, as our extreme, the model ofheroin maintenance that the Britishused in 1969, in the early stages ofthe clinics.Heroin clinics would prescribeheroin on the basis of the clinicphysician's assessment of the addict'sneed, and the addict thenwould pick up his supply at a pharmacyof his choice. Such a systemwould probably have a strong appealfor the great majority of addicts. Theamount of time and energy theywould have to spend in getting theirheroin would be vastly reduced, andthey would be using a safer and farcheaper drug.Many of the social costs of heroinprohibition would be lowered bysuch a system. A higher percentageof addicts would be able to stabilizetheir doses and become more productivecitizens. And even thosewho continued to steal would at leastnot have to meet the demands of anexpensive heroin habit. Moreover,the system would not be very expensiveto administer. The best recentestimate of the cost per addict isabout $2,500, or about one-fifthmore than a well-run methadoneprogram costs today.The Problem of LeakageThe prescription system, however,has one major and intractable disadvantage.Those addicts who pickup their supply of low-cost heroinwill have a strong incentive to resellat least part of their supply. Thisproblem is not a mere consequenceof sloppy administration. It is inherentin any system that allows theaddict to possess resellable heroinoutside the confines of a guardedclinic, laboratory, or hospital.Of course, the clinic staffwill try tolower the amount of heroin the addictcan sell by prescribing no morethan he needs. Several factors, however,make their task extremely difficult.First, it is impossible to tellhow much heroin an addict doesneed. Often he will be able to make aconvincing case that his tolerancehas increased his need.To complicate the matter further,today's heroin addicts have learnedhow to get along on wildly fluctuatingheroin dosages. Their intakevaries enormously when times ofheroin glut are succeeded by shortages,and even during periods ofstable price and supply, when theirincome changes. If the addict wishesto earn money by selling part of hisprescription, he can lower his use,either temporarily or permanently,and simply get along on less.In addition, since methadone willprobably remain available on thestreet at a lower price than heroin, itis likely that an addict would be ableto stave offwithdrawal by using thatdrug. This would allow 4im to sell all(continued on p. 61)Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer9

ThriftIn it ionsInaChanorldIn•By Kenneth E. ScottRolph M. Parsons ProfessorofLow and BusinessNot since the 1930's has thefinancial services environmentin America been sounsettled. Financial institutionsincludingbanks, savings and loanassociations, stock brokerage firmsand money funds-are experimentingwith new services and combinationsof services. Competition for theconsumer's capital is intense. Olddistinctions between the categoriesof financial institutions are beingblurred and, in fact, broken down.New alliances are being formed. Allof these changes - some fostered bynew legislation and some in spite oflegislation on the books - have legalas well as economic aspects, nowand in the uncertain future.A discussion of the legal aspects ofthe emerging new financial servicesenvironment is an exercise in doubleprojection. You must forecast theevolution of that new environmentbefore you can foresee what the salientlegal issues it will raise are mostlikely to be and what outcomes are tobe expected.In addition, to understand the criticallegal problems of that future environmentyou must have some viewof the linkage between law, on onehand, and technology and competitiveforces, on the other. If you focuson the present or the immediatefuture, the task is easy: The lawshapes competition and governs theuses of technology. But in the longerrun, technological changes and competitivepressures remake the law.So, to look at the law of the newfinancial services environment in away more interesting and relevantthan a mere recitation of the currentstatutes, we must seek to understandwhere the forces of technologicaladvance and competitionare taking us.The Consequences ofTechnological ChangeOn the technological side, it is evidentthat we are in the midst of agenuinely revolutionary rate ofgrowth in the speed and capacity ofinformation processing and communicationsystems. More and moreinformation is being brought to bearon decisions and transactions thatare being handled ever more quicklyand inexpensively. This process, weare told by experts in the field, hasfar from run its course, so the consequenceswe can already discern willbecome magnified in the future.What are those consequences forfinancial institutions? Theyare manyand significant. First of all, the newtechnology - with very powerfulcomputers and sophisticated softwareat its core and numerous accessterminals and concentrators deployedin the overall network-becomesvery expensive. Electronicfunds transfer (EFT) networks canbe operated most efficiently only athigh transaction volumes-muchhigher than existing automatedteller machine (ATM) networkshave achieved.This technology, therefore, increasesthe economies of scaleapplicable to banking, with acorresponding enlargement of thescope of natural geographic marketareas for banking products. Unitbanking rules become a more andmore costly anachronism, as doesthe use of state lines to truncatebanking markets artificially. Thosefinancial institutions that can takeadvantage of scale economies andserve natural market areas will havean advantage over those institutionsFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 11

that, because of regulation, cannotdo so. This means that geographicmarket barriers created by law aregoing to come under ever-increasingcost pressure; it would indeed befoolish to rely on them in the future.Second, the new technology affordsfar more flexible, convenient,and economical means of deliveringfinancial services than the longtraditionalset of branch offices andteller lines. Investment in branchoffices is being made obsolete, andoffice capacity will undergo continuingreduction. EFT terminals willproliferate, and the inappropriatenessof treating terminals asbranches for various legal purposeswill become more obvious. It is sensiblefor financial institutions toshare terminals and networks on avoluntary basis in some circumstances,but mandatory sharingstatutes are anticompetitive andmay be invalid under the antitrustlaws.But more fundamentally, the newmodes of delivering financial servicesare enabling households tobecome much better managers oftheir assets and liabilities. The costin time and inconvenience to customersof smoothing out their cashflows, shifting funds among investmentswith different degrees ofliquidity and risk, and obtaining andpaying offcredit lines is all decliningsharply. In such an environment, itmakes very little sense for financialinstitutions to be arbitrarily defined,or confined, in terms of the productsthey offer. There are areas in whichspecialization has its virtues, butthese do not include having one institutionoffer checking accounts,another savings accounts, and athird money funds. That world isending, and it is not a cause forregret.The world that is replacing it willbe marked by new financial servicepackages that tie together variousservices, so they can be more economicallyproduced and consumed.What those efficient combinationsare, or will be, is not easy to discern.We are now witnessing a process ofexploration, which undoubtedly haselements of trial and error about it.Traditional industry lines are beingbroken ever more frequently, as therecent history of financial acquisitionsmakes evident. A life insurancecompany (Prudential) acquires alarge securities brokerage firm(Bache), as does a leading creditcardcompany (American Expressand Shearson). A major retailer(Sears), which already owns an insurancecompany (Allstate) and asavings and loan association (AllstateSavings), buys a securities firm(Dean Witter) and a real estatebroker (Coldwell Banker). A giantbank (Bank of America) acquires aleading discount broker (CharlesSchwab). And so on.Several observations may l:ie offeredon this process of servicerepackaging. To begin with, most ofthe impetus is coming from outsidethe banking industry, which is partof the price of the present system ofbank regulation. Entrants from lessregulatedkinds of businesses havethe edge in responding to new tech- -nology and new opportunities. Theconsumer of banking services caresvery little whether the services comefrom an institution called a bank, solong as his needs are met in a waysuperior to other sources. One of thefew advantages that savings andloan associations have in this competitionis that they are not subject toregulation as banks or bank holdingcompanies by the Federal ReserveBoard, and that is no small boon.For another point, it is not apparentthat all these packages will bewinners. Banks obviously now believethat gains can be made by combiningdeposit services and securitiesservices; and it is true that bothinvolve the processing of massivetransactions volumes and a fairly frequentinterflow of funds. But arethere equally plausible reasons forbelieving that the combination of lifeinsurance and securities businessaffords major production economiesor consumption cOl).venience?One should also question the conclusionthat, whatever the gainsfrom certain packages, they are bestachieved by acquisitions leading tointegrated firms. One alternative iscooperative arrangements betweenseparate firms. Merrill Lynch, for instance,offers its Cash ManagementAccount through contractual relationshipswith Bank One in Ohio.There is also the even more importantalternative of packaging entrepreneurs- firms that assembledifferent services from specializedproducers and offer them to retail institutionsfor sale to the public.Nonetheless, the overall pointseems clear. The financial service industryis being restructured, and theold modes of business have limitedprospects for successful survival.Broader and more flexible productlines, rendered possible by advancesin computer and communicationstechnology, are going to dominatethe new financial services environment-a development that existinglegal obstacles may impede but cannotprevent.12Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

The Impact of InflationThis brings me to the issue of howthe nature of competition in thefinancial services industry has beenaltered in the past few years, andhow that will also shape the future.The moving force in redrawing thecompetitive picture in banking hasbeen the high and variable rate of inflationexperienced in the 1970s,with resulting wide fluctuations ininterest rates. lIigh interest rateshave had one set of consequences,and rapid fluctuations have hadanother, so they should be keptdistinct.Several periods of high interestrates have now largely destroyed theRegulation Q era of controlled depositmarkets. When, in a time of risingmarket rates, ceilings move littleor not at all, enormous costs are imposedon depositors, and large incentivesexist to find ways aroundthe restriction, while the response ofregulators is of necessity cumbersomeand laggard. Sooner or laterthe horse will leave the barn, andthen locking the door will becomeirrelevant. Familiar examples are affordedby NOW accounts and moneymarket funds: the not inconsiderableexpenses required to create them arejustified only by the reduction in thecosts of Reg Qborne by depositors.Even if the recent decline ininterest rates is permanent (anoptimistic assumption), Reg Q willmost probably not be restored to itsformer tarnished glory. Competinginstitutions have now come into existence,and they constitute a powerfilllobby against extension of thebuyers' cartel that Reg Qrepresents.Consumer attitudes have changed,because consumers have been educatedabout the cost of deposit ceilingsand learned alternative ways oftransacting. The fighting beforeCongress over the 1980 and 1982depository institutions acts was onlya struggle over the pace of the inevitable.There will be essentially afree market rate paid for most depositfunds well before the formaldate of 1986, as the DepositoryInstitutions Deregulation Committee(DIDC) actions of December 6,1982, have now made clear.The spreading competition forfunds has also added to the pressureagainst geographic market barriers.On the investment and lending side,those barriers have been mostly ineffectualfor some time, at least atthe wholesale or commercial customerlevel. Loan production offices,correspondent or syndication relationships,and servicing arrangementshave all been used to getaround the law's hostility to portfoliodiversification and the flow of fundsto their most productive uses. It is onthe deposit liability side and at theretail level that the barriers remain areal impediment to competition. TheMcFadden Act, the Douglas amendmentto the Bank lIolding CompanyAct, and the Savings and Loan lIoldingCompany Act prevent unfetteredinterstate branch competition bybanks and S&Ls, but other institutionsand other forms of competitiondo cross state lines. The fact that nostatute prohibits federal S&Ls frombranching or merging across statelines is another potential advantage,so far only partially realized, for thesavings and loan industry.As competition for deposit fundshas led non-banks, such as MerrillLynch, to break into banking markets,product-line barriers have alsocome under pressure- in particillar,the distinction between banking andthe securities business. The bankingindustry has made several unsuccessfultries to get a partial repeal ofthe Glass-Steagall Act, so that bankscould offer mutual funds and underwritemunicipal revenue bonds;surely, the effort will be renewed.Even more important, the limitationof bank holding companies to"closely related" activities, as so farrather narrowly defined by theFederal Reserve Board, is likely toreceive more attention soon.The rapid interest-rate fluctuationsof the 1970s have had their ownconsequences, making painfully apparentthe dangers of a long-termasset structure when combined withshort-term liabilities. The problemsof the savings and loan business havenot gone unnoticed by the public,although federal deposit insurancehas forestalled any real crisis ofconfidence. But I suspect there arenow relatively few supporters-ingovernment, academia, or even inS&L management- for the continuationof a set of institutions mandatedby law to make fixed-rateinvestments on the basis of withdrawableaccounts.The Thrift IndustryTodayWhere do all these developmentsleave the traditional thrift industry inthe 1980s? I do not pretend to muchcertainty in answering that question,but I will at least try to work out theramifications of one line of analysis.lIistorically, the savings and loanbusiness has been based on performingtwo functions - making real estatemortgage loans, and servicingsavings accounts. Nothing in thenew environment will cause thesefunctions to disappear, because bothare needed and both will continue tobe performed by some institutions,although not necessarily in the accustomedmode.Computers, communications, andcompetition do not seem likely torevolutionize real estate lending. Itisan activity that exhibits modest scaleeconomies, and one that S&Ls havealready acquired expertise in performing.In principle, there is noreason to believe that S&Ls cannotcontinue to compete successfully, sofar as the lending function itself isconcerned.What has changed in mortgagelending, of course, is that our recentexperience with volatile inflation andinterest rates has led to the creationFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer13

of a whole variety of new mortgageinstruments, designed to adjust to orshift the risk of rate fluctuations.The legal issue thereby generated iswhether the terms of those instrumentswill be dictated more bymarket forces or by the regulatoryprocess in ways that impede theireffective use. The most sweepingargument for regulation of thedesign of alternative mortgage instrumentsis that lenders should notbe allowed to shift the risk of marketinterest rate increases to the borrower,who is less informed aboutsuch matters and less able to predicttheir future course. While it is nodoubt true that the average lender ismore sophisticated about financialmarkets than the average borrower,it is probably also true that theaverage mortgage borrower is betterhedged against inflation (through hissal~ry and real estate equity) thanthe typical S&L has been, and henceis the superior risk-bearer in thisinstance.The other arguments for regulationof mortgage instruments aremostly a familiar sort of consumerprotection rationale - a blend ofassumed consumer ignorance and afailure to recognize that the allocationof various risks in the contract isinevitably reflected in the priceterm. If the regulators were contentto place some sort of ceiling on theprepayment penalty, for example, itis hard to see how substantive regulationof the other areas of the contractcould be justified. But althoughflexibility in the design and evolutionof mortgage instruments is certainlydesirable, these issues probably donot impact institutional survival inany major way.The traditional S&L financed itsholding of a m.ortgage portfolio on abase of savings accounts, however,and here more problems are foreseeable.There is little specializedknowledge or skill needed to servicesavings accounts, and there arelarge-scale economies in storing theinformation and processing thetransactions. From the customer'sstandpoint, it is desirable to be ablequickly and cheaply to shift fundsamong different asset holdings andto access a secured line of creditwhenever needed. The broad-spectrumfinancial institution seems topossess substantial advantages overa savings specialist, at least for themore affluent customers who ownsecurities and write checks. But onlyabout 20 percent of adults ownstocks, and a significant fraction ofthe population still does not havechecking accounts. In competing forthe savings of this segment, broadspectrumofferings count for little.The savings specialist may still havea role, but it is a diminishing one.When the two functions of mortgagelending and savings receivingare combined in a single institution,additional difficulties emerge. Thedangers of short-term borrowingand long-term lending moved fromthe status of theoretical concerns toreal world nightmares in the 1970s,and of course adjustments weremade. New mortgage instruments ineffect shortened asset maturities,and new savings certificates lengthenedliability maturities. However, abalance has not yet been achieved.The thrifts have obtained constantlybroader lending and investment authority,which can also be used toproduce a shorter average maturityof assets. The Garn-St Germain Actof 1982 may have marked the culminationof that trend for the time being,with authority (albeit limited)for commercial as well as consumerlending, and for equipment leasing.But authorityis one thing, while itseffective exploitation is another. Asthrifts enter unfamiliar fields, whatcomparative advantages do theyhave over institutions already there?Are there production economies inadding general commercial lendingto real-estate lending, or a limitednumber of checking accounts to savingsaccounts? The answers are noteasy to discern.In short, the traditional savingsand loan association, with a mortgageportfolio supported by a savingsaccount base, does not seem agood candidate for survival. Even ifinflation stays down and mortgagerates decline toward what were onceconsidered normal levels, the competitivecircumstances of the pastwill not be restored.The Thrift Industryin the FutureIn what directions, then, may we expectthe thrift industry to evolve?There are a number of possibilities.Some institutions will join in the newfinancial conglomerates that areemerging. This process has beenunder way for some time, but it isnow accelerating: Citicorp, Sears,and Household International all ownsavings and loan associations. Someof the largest S&Ls may take thelead in making such combinationsand become nuclei to which otherservices are added. In either event,S&Ls have at present one great tacticaladvantage in the contest tocreate some nationwide financial institutions- they do not transformtheir parent companies into bankholding companies. That means theycan add other financial services,extend EFT networks (and evenbranches, if acquired in supervisorymergers) across state lines, largelyignore the Glass-Steagall Act byoffering securities services, and soon. This advantage is a legal artifactand may not be permanent, but it isof no small value while it lasts.What the geographic scale of thesenew financial conglomerates will beis not yet clear. Some will be nationalin scope, but others will probably beregional; the scale economies involvedare still being determined.But however much the IndependentBankers Association may pine forthe days of the local institution comfortablyprotected in its localmarket, the clock cannot be turnedback. That means that in the S&L14Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

usiness, as in banking, we have toomany small and separate institutions,and many will disappear. Itwould be better for all concerned ifthat occurred by voluntary and negotiatedmerger rather than by failureor receivership, but no doubt we willsee more of both. The mix betweenacquisitions and failures will bedetermined in part by the way thebanking agencies and the Departmentof Justice's Antitrust Divisioninterpret the Clayton Act stricturesagainst market concentration. Definitionsof banking markets have forthe past two decades been unrealisticallynarrow, following theSupreme Court's 1963 PhiladelphiaNational Bank decision, but thatmay now be changing, at least so faras the Department of Justice is concerned.Does this mean that only financialconglomerates will be viable in thefuture? Will all savings and loanseither meld into broad-spectrumfirms or vanish? That seems unlikely,but they will be transformedin major ways. Some will becomeconsumer banks, although for thatthey will need broader authoritythan they now have on both the assetand the liability side. At present,S&Ls are too constrained by percentage-of-assetsinvestment limitations(in both their charteringlegislation and the tax code) and byrestrictions on offering checking accountsand competing for funds. Theneeded authority may be obtained byfurther amendments of the law, orby conversion into other types offinancial institutions.Some S&Ls may move from beingfinancial intermediaries holdinglarge loan portfolios to beingprimarily mortgage bankers- originatingreal estate loans but sellingthem to pension funds and other institutionalinvestors or packagingthem into mortgage pools for sale tothe public. There are advantages toportfolio diversification, in terms ofreducing unnecessary risk, that aspecialized lender cannot achieve;but there are also advantages tospecialization in originating and servicing,particulartypes of loans. Onestrategy might be for some associationsto use a reduced base of savingsaccounts to carry, not an extensiveloan portfolio, but rather the inventoryof a dealer being held brieflybefore resale. In this manner, theultimate credit and market risk isborne by more diversified lenders.Another strategy might be for associationsto draw on their knowledgeof real estate to move into realestate development directly, a trendlong discernible in California and afew other states (although limited inamount). Real estate development isa much more risky line of businessthan secured lending, and the requiredequity capital is accordinglymuch more expensive. S&Ls would,therefore, have a competitive advantagein such pursuits if they alonecould raise funds at the lower ratescommanded by relatively riskless insureddeposits, reinvesting at thehigher rates associated with theequity interest in real estate development.That of course amounts totransferring the risk to the FederalSavings and Loan Insurance Corporation(FSLIC) and exploiting itsuniform premium system.The FSLIC is currently studyingthe possibility of varying its premiumaccording to an institution'srisk; but the risk FSLIC initially hadin mind appeared to be mostly themarket risk from an imbalance inasset and liability maturities, ratherthan the higher variance in returnsfrom activities like real estatedevelopment. To be of value, theFSLIC study must encompass notonly both those kinds of risk, butanother kind as well. The risk to theinsurance corporation is not simply adirect function of the portfolio risk ofthe firm, because the failure of afinancial institution is not an unmistakableevent, like an auto accidentor a flood. An S&L failure representsa judgment by a supervisoryagency to close the firm or force itout of existence. The insurer's risk ispowerfully affected by the supervisor'sdecision to foreclose orforbear, a decision that is not easilymodeled or assessed. In any event, itis good to see the idea of a risk-basedvariable insurance premium beingtaken seriously. Ten years ago, TomMayer and I made such a proposal*in a study done for the Hunt Commission,and at that time the ideawas regarded as so far out that theCommission disposed of it in asentence or two.(continued on p. 61)*Scott and Mayer, Risk and Regulation inBanking: Some Proposalsfor Federal Deposit InsuranceReform, 23 STAN. L. REv. 857 (1971).Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer15

ConversationsWith Five AlumniBy Michele FoyerIn his maxims for success, LordBeaverbrook recommends thatone retire many times. Here arethe stories of five graduates, all morethan forty years out of law school,who have retired at least once. Somehave launched new careers, othershave found more time for old interests,and a few have had to adjust tothe loss of loved ones or otheraspects of the aging process.There are few generalizations thatcan be drawn from these interviews.Except one: the same drive thatbrings students to Stanford LawSchool impels them to continue exploringand seeking new challengesthroughout their lives.Saroyan -a helping hand forArmenian immigrants16Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Suren M. Saroyan '29"It's important for me to dosomething for the Armenian people;'said Suren M. Saroyan ('29), whoseparents immigrated to America in1888.Saroyan, now in "semi-retirement"at 78, cut back his San Franciscocommercial law practice fifteenyears ago to devote more time to hispersonal interests. The AmericanNational Committee to Aid HomelessArmenians (ANCHA) was highon his list.He helped found the volunteer organization,of which he is currentpresident, following World War II,when he learned that Armenianswere stranded in parts of EasternEurope in displaced persons campswithout food, medicine, or homes."We haven't had a homeland of ourown since the Ottoman and Turkishinvasions in the seventeenth century,"he explained. "Between 1890and 1916 the Turks massacred oneand-a-half-millionArmenians andbanished another three-hundredthousand. To this day they deny thisfact."Saroyan spent countless hours onANCHA affairs during a busy lawcareer that included 23 years(1939-62) as liquidation counsel forthe California state superintendentof banks. Ever mindful of the rightsof the dispossessed, Saroyan madesure that all Japanese-American depositorsreceived their checking andsavings deposits back with legal interestfrom the banks he liquidated.ANCHA, which now has offices inSan Francisco, Los Angeles andNew York, has since 1949 helpedmore than 24,500 Armenians immigrateto the United States- a complicatedprocess involving clearancesfrom the United Nations, U.S. visas,flight arrangements, transportationloans and an orientation program.Saroyan has made over 137 trips athis own expense to New York togreet and process new arrivals. "Italk to them about what to expect inthe United States," he said,"-that itis a country of laws and not people."I explain our freedoms, whichmany have never known, and the importanceof the responsibility thatgoes with that freedom."Nearly all these newcomers becomeindustrious and law-abidingAmerican citizens," said Saroyanwith pride. "Many are now factoryowners, successful shopkeepers,shoe manufacturers, jewelers,watchmakers, and even chefs-suchas the chef at the Olympic Club."Neoma, Mr. Saroyan's wife of fiftyyears, is vice-president of ANCHA,mother of their two grown daughters,and grandmother of their sevengrandchildren. She swears that herhusband has been living "ninelives" - including not only ANCHAand his law practice, but also workfor the Armenian Apostolic Churchand Community Center of San Francisco,a successful foray into balletand opera production, and activitiesin the Democratic Party as a delegateand alternate to the DemocraticNational Conventions.The Saroyans enjoy traveling andhave visited every country in Europeand the Near, Middle and Far East.Of all his endeavors, Saroyan'sdeepest interest has been helpinghomeless Armenians. "I rememberthe prejudice against my peoplewhen I was in high school," he said."The situation has improved tremendously.Today we have an Armeniangovernor."It has been a fruitful life," he said,"but too short for a person to accomplishall his dreams."Laurence Weinberg '33"I've always liked trains," saidLaurence Weinberg, referring to hispro bono work as special representativeto the Coachella Valley Associationof Government (CVAG) commissionassigned to rail transportation.Transportation is a new area forWeinberg, 73, whose career includesalmost twenty years withLoeb & Loeb in Los Angeles, wherehe specialized in entertainment law.During 1947-48, while on leave ofabsence from the firm, he organizedthe legal department at UniversalStudios.Weinberg left Loeb & Loeb in1959 to start his own practice, whichwas principally concerned with traderegulation and antitrust issues. In1960, he was named general counseland member of the board of directorsof Superscope, the national distributorof Sony tape recorders.Weinberg formally retired in 1979and moved to Rancho Mirage, wherehe is now deeply involved in probono work. "These projects bringme in contact with a lot of people andkeep me mentally active," he said."There are two special matters onwhich I am currently at work forCVAG. One is to bring railroadpassenger service from Los Angelesto the Coachella valley. The secondis to improve Highway 86, whichruns from Indio to Brawley and isknown as "the killer highway."The special transportation needsof the handicapped and elderly in theCoachella valley are another concernof Weinberg, who chairs the SunlineTransportation Study Group on theproblem.Weinberg's pro bono activitiesalso include serving as chairman ofthe Rancho Mirage Rent Commission.He hears petitions presentedFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer17

y landlords and tenants about rentstandards for mobile homes. "Thiswork gives me a taste of what it islike to be a judge," he said. "I'vereally enjoyed it."Had pro bono work been part ofhis retirement plan? "Not at first," hesaid. "When I began considering retirementin 1965, I purchased a residencein what later became the cityof Rancho Mirage. I think change iseasier to handle if you have an idea ofwhere you are going."Soon after the purchase, I becameinvolved in a local zoning controversyand met many people active incivic affairs."In 1979," he continued, "I thoughtit might be interesting to do somepro bono work and made known mydesire to the people I had met duringthe zoning controversy. A year later,I was named chairman of the RentControl Commission. After that, onething led to another."Has his definition of successchanged throughout the years? "No.I've always placed the lucrativeaspect of practice third or fourthdown the line. I think it's more importantfor me to get good resultsand a sense of satisfaction."I have a feeling of great happinesswith the way things have workedout," Weinberg reflected."Retirement has never given me adull moment. My practice was successful,and I believe I made the besttransition possible from active practice.I wouldn't want to change anything."But most important," Weinbergcontinued, "I have a happy marriedlife-and that's the tops."Weinberg's wife, Marion, also anattorney, joined him in practicewhen he started his own firm. Boththeir children attended Stanford,and two of their five grandchildrenwere born on the campus.The senior Weinbergs have justreturned from a six-week tripthrough Canada and the northernUnited States. By train, of course.Weinberg enjoys probono work ontransportationcommission18Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

H. Baird Kidwell '33Former Hawaiian Supreme CourtJustice H. Baird Kidwell keeps activein law byteaching a legal writingsection during the winter term at theUniversity of Hawaii Law School.Kidwell, now 72~ began his careerat O'Melveny & Myers in LosAngeles, followed by over 35 yearsat Goodsill Anderson & Quinn ofHonolulu (formerly Jenks, Kidwell,Goodsill & Anderson), where hehandled banking and property developmentissues, as well as serving ascounsel for the Bank of Hawaii andthe Hawaiian Trust Company.Kidwell has also been active instate and national bar activities, includinga term as president of theHawaiian Bar and as a member ofthe Board of Governors of theAmerican Bar Association.While finalizing plans for retirementfrom Goodsill, Anderson inlate 1974, Kidwell was, much to hissurprise, asked to sit on theHawaiian Supreme Court.Soon after his term on the courtended in 1979, Kidwell was offeredthe part-time adjunct professorshipat the University of Hawaii. "I guessI like to be flogged a little, but I'mhappy to do the research to stay onestep ahead of my students," he explained."The one-to-one contact isvery gratifying."I particularly relish the increasedfreedom to express my views withouthaving to worry about offendingclients or preserving impartiality,"he observed. "A lawyer must oftensubmerge his own values to those ofthe client. Now I'm letting minecome through more."Kidwell is also enjoying the increasedleisure time afforded bypart-time employment. "There is agreater opportunity to follow myown interests," he said. "At last IJustice Kidwell teacheslegal writing to a newgeneration oflawyershave the time to read more deeply inphilosophy and jurisprudence."Avid lovers of the outdoors, Kidwelland his wife, Margaret (AB '39),spend a lot of time at their countryplace in the north of Oahu and onSierra Club camping trips and walkingtours. During recent years theKidwells have pitched their tent inKenya, Nepal, Peru, and Norway.Any views about retirement thathe would like to share? "It is oftendifficult to retire if you have beenraised with the obligation not to beidle." he said. "One needs to shake offthat sense of guilt. By the time I hadfinished the period on the court, Iwas ready."Yes," Kidwell concluded, "theseare some of the best years."Harvey Rothschild'42"I'm having a ball," said HarveyRothschild with a laugh, as he talkedabout his last ten years - an entrepreneur'sdream come true. Severalyears after retiring as president andowner of Dolly Myers, a large Seattleclothing firm, Mr. Rothschild,now 66, started a mail-order companywhich, much to his surprise anddelight, has become a multimilliondollarbusiness.Mr. Rothschild, who never practicedlaw, left the clothing businessin 1970, after his first wife died. "Herdeath was a great emotional shock tome," he said. "We had known eachother for so long- we'd marriedFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer19

when I was studying law and she wasa doctoral student."Margeryurged me to slow down,"he recalled, "but I thought I was tooyoung and there would be plenty oftime to enjoy things later. While Iwas wrapped up in business, she wasalways eager to explore each new experiencewhich life offered."Too late," he said, "I realized thatshe had been wiser. I determinedthen that as much as possible, Iwould do what I really wanted."For the next two years, Rothschildtraveled all over the world, scubadiving wherever he could. During aholiday in Germany he received theinspiration for his new business.A German language teacher, whoencouraged Rothschild to converseby focusing on common objects, oneday removed a custom arch supportfrom her shoe. A lively discussionensued, as the teacher had once soldthe product.Two nights later Rothschild wokeup at three in the morning. "I had afully blown picture in my mind of abetter way I could take footprints toorder the arch support," he said. "Ialso wrote out a complete mail-ordermarketing plan."Within a few days he had trackeddown the manufacturer of the productand worked out an agreement."The manufacturer thought I wascrazy. I didn't know whether I couldsell the product by mail," Rothschildsaid, "but I sure wanted to try."He set up his new business­Featherspring International-in thebasement of his Seattle home. "Ittook from 1972 to 1976 to learn howto sell the product," he recalled. "Allmy past marketing and finance experiencecame into play. I evenwrote some of the ads. After I linkedup with a Chicago-based mail orderadvertising firm in 1976, thingsreally began to skyrocket."Today, Rothschild employs 65people and has just moved to largeroffices. As the national director ofthe Better Business Bureau, he alsotravels frequently within the UnitedStates.But he hasn't allowed himself tobecome too wrapped up in his business,although he enjoys it immensely.Rothschild's second wife,Ulla, who had worked with him foryears and is an "excellent administrator,"helped him set thecompany up so that it would runefficiently without their constantpresence."We spend an eighth of our time inSeattle, one-half at our second homein Hawaii, and the rest travelingabroad," said Rothschild.Some of the Rothschilds' more exotictrips include an African safari,ballooning and cooking lessons inBurgundy, and a cruise through thePanama Canal. Recently he took hisfour children, their spouses, andseven grandchildren scuba diving offthe Yucatan coast."All the time I see more clearlythat success means being able to dowhat one really wants," he said. "Forme, the business is the most wonderfulhobby, and I enjoy the time Ispend traveling with my wife."Retire?" he asked incredulously."Not while my health lasts. My nextplan is to take hang-gliding lessonsit'ssomething I've always wanted todo."20Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Edwin Gerhardt '34After almost forty years as an admiraltylawyer for Lillick, McHose& Charles in San Francisco, EdwinGerhardt suffered a serious stroke.His doctors gave him an ultimatum:retire."It was a big blow to me," recalledGerhardt, 71. "I had always been soactive. My work was really central tohow I thought of myself as a man. Iwas a lawyer, period."For awhile I sat around and ragedand sulked," he said. "But when afriend suggested that I do some communityservice work, I decided toinvestigate."Over the past eight years, Gerhardt,a resident of Menlo Park, hasbeen a volunteer with Little House,the Kiwanis Club, and the AdvisoryCouncil of Retired Senior Volunteersfor San Mateo County.He has served on administrativeboards, visited convalescent homes,taught dominoes, driven elderly pa-tients to doctors, called bingo, writtennewsletters, delivered meals,and staged plays for benefits. In1980 he received a special commendationfrom Little House for his servicesto hospital patients."My own frustrations recede whenI attempt to bring out a smile or occasionallaughterto the people I visit,"he said. "When I teach dominoes, I'mnot just teaching dominoes, but tryingto impart some joy and understandingas well."I have gained so much from thiswork, I think about people and valuemy friendships much more now.And I have learned a great degree oftolerance, patience and empathy."Have his views on successchanged? "I think I burned too muchmidnight oil and should have spentmore time with my family. Thosebonds are really important as you getolder," he observed. "I am reallythankful for my wife and daughter. Icouldn't have gotten through thiswithout them."Any advice for younger lawyers?"Yes. I would counsel them to considerfinancial planning from the firstday they go to work," he said. "Get agood investment counselor. Learn toshield money, and figure out the taxconsequences of what you do, so thatyou will still have a fair income whenyou are no longer working.".Gerhardt (center) has beencommended by Little Housefor volunteer service to theill and elderlyFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer21

~o(1)AtISSUE *Union 'Rights' in theFremont GM-Toyota PlantBy William B. GouldProfessor ofLawThe General Motors-Toyotajoint venture at Fremont,California, poses a host ofdifficult legal labor questions thatmay ultimately have to be resolvedby the National Labor RelationsBoard, the courts, or both. Beyondthe legal issues, labor problems inherentin this innovative effort cannotbe fully understood withoutsome appreciation of the Japaneselabor environment.President Eiji Toyoda of Toyotahas made it clear that the nationalagreement between General Motorsand the United Auto Workers willnot apply to the new Fremont facilities,and that preferential hiringrights will not be given to UAWmembers who were employed beforethe GM assembly plant was*An occasional section ofcommentand opinion. Views hereinexpressed are not endorsedby the editors or by StanfordLaw School. Readers are invitedto respond. Contributionson new topics are alsowelcome.1\)",.,-\,.':I ,1.': ~ , \\- )~ ~ - ~I ~ \ - ~\ ~ro~""""~::......-JL=-.lI~--L-L.;,.,.::':'-.c....:~-=----.:...~~:..;....::.-::..~.:-..._~.L--' 00::(1):>(1)ci5>..0-(1)]~.SIf)b()l::.~22Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

closed last year. Toyoda's position- that the new plant would "startfrom scratch"- is likely to be upheldin the courts. Theywill accord rightsto the UAW only if GM-Toyota canbe regarded as a "successor" to theGM assembly plant as a matter offederal labor law.Successorship may be proved inone of two ways. The first would bethrough a successorship clause in theUAW-GM agreement applicable toFremont. Such a clause would requirea new business entity using thesame facilities to assume the termsof the old contract. Since there is nosuch provision in the UAW-GMagreement, the union must rely on asecond theory-that GM-Toyota isthe successor in the sense that thereis a "continuity within the employingindustry" between the new entityand the old assembly plant. While itis difficult to estimate with precisionthe results of successor cases that goto court, the relevant factors asviewed by the courts appear to makethe UAW's position somewhat weak.An important consideration in thesuccessorship issue is whether GM­Toyota will change the method andscale of operations at Fremont, aswell as the products that it manufacturesthere. Plans to increase relianceon robots and to adopt thekanban system (the integration ofparts-manufacturing facilities withthe assembly plant) are signs ofsubstantial change that argueagainst successorship. So does thetwo-year hiatus between the closureof the assembly plant and the start ofa new facility in 1984. A lack of preferentialhiring, however, is the mosttelling argument against successorship.The UAW cannot obligemanagement to bargain until it establishesthat it represents a majorityof the work force's "fullcomplement."While American industrial relationsmay prove to be a culturalshock for Toyota, U.S. labor lawitself is not. This is due to one of thegreat ironies of the post-World WarII period- the imposition, during theMacArthur occupation, of our laborlaw as it was in 1945. The Japanese,of course, have shaped it to their ownneeds during the intervening years.Although GM-Toyota cannot discriminateagainst union-member applicantsin Fremont (the UAW canbe expected to be vigilant on thispoint), Toyota can do so in Japan.This is because Japanese judges, unliketheir American counterparts,have excluded applicants (as opposedto incumbent employees)from their law's protection on thegrounds that management prerogativesought not to be circumscribedin what is necessarily a detailedselection process. Why the differencebetween the two countries?Since, as a matter of law and practice,Japanese workers cannot belaid off with ease, the argument acceptedby the courts is that Japanesecompanies need more freedom intheir screening procedures.The biggest problem that theJapanese face in this country is thetendency of American workers todefine their jobs in terms of specificclassifications. Japanese companyunions (which are loosely affiliatedwith national federations) not onlyencourage flexibility in job assignmentsbut also have found a way toinclude supervisory and white-collarpersonnel within their ranks, thusdiminishing disputes over work assignments.As one GM labor executivesaid to me: "In Japan, when theline breaks down, it's like Mario Andretti'scar pit. The supervisors arein there with their sleeves rolled up."Thus, just as the law gives manyadvantages to GM-Toyota in resistingthe UAW at Fremont (though notquite as many as it would have inJapan), different practices in the twocountries make the Japanese wary ofadversarial-type American unions.Yet the chances are that the lawwill be largely irrelevant to recognitionproblems at Fremont because ofthe longstanding UAW-GM relationship.The odds are that the UAW willuse its leverage with GM and becomethe bargaining agent at Fremont.We can expect hard bargainingas the contract is put together.GM-Toyota's strong legal positionwill no doubt soften up the union.For starters, management willseek and probably obtain more flexibilityin work assignments. (It alsowill vigorously resist Japanese-styleUAW incursions into white collarranks.) New procedures may be proposedfor the resolution of grievances-anotherarea in which Japaneseand American practices differmarkedly. But labor relations thatsmack of paternalism will be moredifficult to sell to California autoworkers, regardless of their previouswork experience.The Japanese have avoided or resistedunions in most of theirAmerican production facilities. If Iam correct in assuming that theUAW will have a bargaining relationshipwith GM-Toyota, it will presentan unusual opportunity for Eastand West to meet. Fremont may bean important listening post for those(I count myself among them) whowould like our system to promotemore cooperation and less conflict.•[Reprinted with permission from theLos Angeles Times, March 11,1983.}Professor Gould, a Stanford Lawfaculty member since 1972, has justcompleted a book comparingAmericanandJapanese labor law and policy. Hehas twice (in 1975 and 1978) been avisiting scholar at the University ofTokyo. Other experience includesservice with the United AutomobileWorkers (as assistant general counsel)and with the National LaborRelationsBoard.Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer23

AtISSUECongressional Responses toSupreme Court Decisions: DistinguishingConstitutionality and WisdomBy Gerald GuntherWilliam Nelson CromwellProfessor ofLawThe failure of the New Right'sassault on the Supreme Courtlast year was widely portrayed-especially in the media andpolitical forums - as just desert forthe movement's resort to "illegitimate"weapons.The assault involved two majorproposals before the Ninety-seventhCongress venting disagreement withcontroversial Supreme Court decisionson abortion and school prayer.Both were blocked in the Senate by afilibuster. However, similar legislativeproposals by the New Righ~. arepending before the present Congress.The conventional wisdom assertsthat Congress has no business tryingto curb Court rulings by a majorityvote and that the only legal route forchallenging Court decisions is theconstitutional amendment process.The conventional wisdom strikes24 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

me as wrong. It rests on a profoundmisunderstanding of our constitutionalscheme. As a matter of sheerconstitutional power, Congress mayvoice disagreement with Court rulingsthrough a range of methodsshort of constitutional amendment.Like the political branches' control ofjudicial appointments and of the sizeof the Court, the weapons recentlywielded by the New Right are legitimateas a matter of sheer congressionalauthority-whatever one maythink of their effectiveness or desirability.Indeed, when the judiciary survivesthe recurrent firestorms ofcriticism because Congress is persuadednot to resort to theseweapons except under the most extremecircumstances, the systemworks at its best and the stature ofthe Court often emerges all thegreater. What may fairly be addedis that the wisest congressionalresponse to objectionable Courtdecisions is through the constitutionalamendment process - and thatall other routes are usually illadvised(but not wholly illegitimate)end runs around that preferablemethod.The Helms antiabortion proposal,for example, rested on substantialconstitutional grounds- grounds advancedby the modern Court itself.The premise was that Congress,under its power to enforce the FourteenthAmendment, has some authorityto redefine Court-articulatedconstitutional rights.Before the mid-1960s, most scholarswould indeed have branded thattechnique as lawless. But, ironically,it was the liberal Warren Court, inthe 1966 Katzenbach v. Morgan decision(sustaining a section of theVoting Rights Act of 1965), whichprovided some legitimacy for theNew Right's approach of the 1980s.Justice Brennan's majority opinionin Morgan conceded to Congresspower nearly coequal with that of theCourt to delineate the contours ofconstitutional rights. The "conservative"Justice Harlan warned in dissentthat the ruling opened the doorto an impairment of traditional judicialauthority. I have always thoughtthat Justice Harlan was right. Eversince Morgan, constitutional scholarshave worried about its implications.Yet neither the commentarynor the Court itself has ever clearlycurtailed the Morgan power.In perspective, the recent blockingof the antiabortion drive constitutesa wise judgment by Congress to rescuethe Court from its own Frankensteinmonster. Congressional abstentionin this instance may in thelong run do more to discourage invocationof the Morgan power thananything the Court or commentatorshave been able to achieve.The Helms school prayer proposalrested on even stronger historicaland legal grounds. The centralpremise of the Helms effort to barfederal court intervention in "voluntary"school prayers was that Congresshas authority over the SupremeCourt's appellate jurisdiction.The claim that Congress determinesthe kinds of issues the Courtmay hear is hardly novel or revolutionary.Soon after the Civil War, inthe only case putting the question toa direct test (Ex parte McCardle), theCourt bowed to just such a curb. Andover the years, many constitutionalscholars have agreed that Congressdoes indeed have that jurisdictionstrippingauthority.The question remains whether theCourt defenders who blocked theHelms bills were themselves guilty ofresorting to improper means. Theanti-Court bills were defeatedbecause the New Right could notmuster the necessary 60 votes to imposecloture on filibusters waged bythe Court defenders. Filibustershave traditionally been the weaponsof reactionary, antimajoritarianforces.Yet the recent liberal filibustershad special justifications. Courtdefenders plausibly claimed that theconstitutional amendment route isthe only wise way to overturn Courtdecisions. Congressional initiation ofamendments requires a supermajority(two-thirds) vote. The impositionof cloture to shut off filibusters requiresa similar supermajoritythree-fifthsof the Senate. Initiating afilibuster thus was the only methodavailable to the Court defenders toinsist upon the considered consensusof a supermajority as a preconditionfor congressional modification ofCourt-established rights.These recent developments, then,underscore the wisdom of our constitutionalscheme: rather than immunizingthe Court from all congressionalresponses, it permits politicaltensions to be aired; and congressionalself-restraint in resorting tothe weapons at its command leavesthe Court better off for having metand survived the challenges from thepolitical arena.The defeat of the Helms bills isthus best viewed as a welcome exampleof the sober second thought ofCongress in defending and probablystrengthening the Court- not byrepudiating extremist, "lawless"measures, but, in the healthiesttraditions of our constitutionalscheme, by abjuring legitimate butimprudent devices to impose curbson the judiciary.•Professor Gunther presented an expandedstatement of his position inJune 1983 at the Chief Justice EarlWarren Conference of the RoscoePound American Trial LawyersFoundation; the Conference proceedingswill be published.Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer25

AtISSUEPrison Labor:TimeTo Take Another LookBy Byron D. SherProfessor ofLawThe concept of prison labor hasbeen out of fashion in recentyears. In my view there arecompelling reasons to revive and expandwork programs for prisoners.Like many states, California haslong experience with prison labor. Infact, the California state constitutionexplicitly mandates the practice inthe following words: "the Legislatureshall, by law, provide for theworking of convicts for the benefit ofthe state" (Article XIV, Section 5).California's first state prison- SanQuentin- was founded on the principlethat the construction and operationof the institution should cost thetaxpayers little or nothing. Convictlabor would not only eliminate taxpayerexpense but also return aprofit to the private contractor whosupervised the convicts.Construction of San Quentin beganin 1852. A ship hulk, towed fromthe frontier city of San Francisco toPoint Quentin in Marin County,served as living quarters for bothmen and women prisoners whilethey built their new land-basedhome.After the prison was completed,the inmates were leased out to localfarmers and manufacturers for manuallabor. In 1858, however, scan-daIs over corruption and brutality atthe prison ended private operation ofSan Quentin.Due to overcrowding at San Quentin,a second state prison wasestablished in 1883 along theAmerican River near the town ofFolsom, a site with access to amplesupplies of both water and rock. TheNatoma Mining Company donatedthe land for the prison on the conditionthat it would control the quarryoutput after the prison itself wasfinished. Parts of the state capitolbuilding and the city of Sacramentoare made from granite rock quarried,cut, and crushed by Folsomprisoners.In furtherance of the notion thatthe prisons should cost the state aslittle as possible, a system of prisonindustries was soon started. At SanQuentin, for example, convicts wereemployed in the manufacture of jutebags for the storage of grain.(Previously, jute bags had been importedby the state and sold to localfarmers at a profit.)Extensive use of prison labor continuedin California and other statesuntil the Great Depression, whenhigh unemployment prompted thepassage of federal legislation to limitor halt the shipment of convict-madearticles in interstate commerce.These laws, most of which are stillon the books, have continued to hobblethe growth of many prison industries.World War II, with its labor shortages,temporarily reversed the declineof prison industries. Prisonlabor restrictions were set aside andthe War Production Board encouragedthe states to put their convictsto work. San Quentin's old jute millwas converted to the manufacture ofsandbags for the Marine Corps; thenew furniture factory became anassembly line for naval assaultcrafts; and textile plants were usedto recycle uniforms for the Pacificfleet.World War II also saw the birth ofCalifornia's conservation campsystem, which still uses inmates tofight fires and perform related conservationwork for the Departmentof Forestry. (Today there are stillnearly 3,000 prisoners in conservationcamps.)After the war the CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections (CDC)was established to turn the State'sdisparate prisons into a single,statewide correctional system. Thenew department decided to convertprison industries exclusively to theproduction of goods for the publicuse. Thus, in 1947, CDC receivedpermission to begin making automobilelicense plates at Folsom Prison.Approval to manufacture schooldesks at San Quentin soon followed.The trade-off for establishing newindustries was the legal agreementto limit purchase of prison productsto public agencies.26Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

After a spurt of expansion in thepost-war years, prison industriesbegan to experience a slow andsteady decline. Convict labor becameunfashionable in a time ofgrowing emphasis on "medicalmodel" rehabilitation programsstressing counseling and therapy.During the administration of then­Governor Reagan, several agriculturaland industrial operations wereactually abandoned. From the highwatermark of the mid-1960s, when3,300 inmates were employed in 45separate enterprises, "correctionalindustries" was reduced in 1981 to2,300 inmates employed in only 34enterprises.In the past three years, however,interest in prison labor has revived,due in part to the rapid expansion inthe number of prisoners. The Californiaprison population has almostdoubled in the last decade and todaystands at 35,000 inmates, an all-timerecord. And the CDC predicts, giventhe accelerating increase, that thefigure will reach 60,000 within fiveyears.At the same time, the state governmenthas been undergoing fiscalcontraction. The CDC is scramblingto find money to build enough newprison beds and hire enough stafftorun its institutions. Although in June1982 California voters approved abond issue to finance construction ofnew prisons, the amount authorized- $495 million - will actually payfor only one-quarter of the facilitiesneeded by the end of this decade.The cost of housing a prisoner inCalifornia today is $13,000 a year.The cost of new prisons, accordingto CDC plans, is between $80,000and $100,000 per cell!The necessity for cutting correctionalcosts is apparent. TheLegislature has recently turned toself-supporting prison work programsas one way to do so. The ideais to cut costs both directly by increasingthe self-sufficiency of prisonsand indirectly through sale ofconvict products or services. Twosignificant legislative actions weretaken last year to help put Californiaprisons back on a productive footing.The first was to create work incentivesfor inmates. A new time-creditsystem, called "worktime," was substitutedfor the previous "goodtime"system (which had been awardedautomatically whether or not a prisonerworked). Under the newsystem, a prisoner can earn one dayof credit for every full day of work.Thus, a prisoner who chooses to remainidle will receive no credits andwill serve his full sentence. In addition,the amount of time credit aprisoner can lose for misconductwhile in prison was lengthened from45 days to a year.The second legislative act abolishedthe old Correctional IndustriesCommission (which had beencharged with limiting the size andrevenues of prison industries) andcreated a new Prison IndustryAuthority. The Authority was givena mandate to expand prison laborprograms, the power to borrow privateor public funds, and the abilityto fashion its own personnel andprocurement policies outside of thenormal civil service system.The paramount question whichmust now be answered is what sortof work can inmates do that will notbring them in competition with(continued on p. 67)Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer27

Graduates and friends of theSchool had an opportunity May5 and 6 to learn of developmentsduring the first, year of John HartEly's deanship and to offer theircomments and advice.The occasion was the annualmeeting of the Board of Visitors - agroup of 100 representatives servingthree-year terms on the advisorygroup.This year's program includedreports on "the state of the school" byDean Ely and the four associate andassistant deans, a review of the rapidprogress of the. Law and BusinessProgram, a discussion by Stanford'sdistinguished constitutional law facu1tyof a complex school desegregationcase, and a special panel, featuringfour seasoned lawyers, on therealities of "successful lawyering,"with implications for legal education.Supreme Court Justice William H.Rehnquist, a 1952 graduate of theSchool, joined the Visitors for dinneron the final evening, following theannual Marion Rice Kirkwood MootCourt Competition, over which hepresided [see p. 50].The meeting this year was thetwenty-fifth for the Board of Visitors.The Board was first organizedin the fall of 1958 by 36 alumni, at theinvitation of University PresidentJ. E. Wallace Sterling, on the recommendationof Dean Carl B. Spaethand faculty of the School.Stanley A. Weigel ('28), theBoard's first chair (1958-63), was anhonored guest, as were seven otherformer chairs: Hon. Murray Draper('30), chair from 1963 to 1966, JohnB. Lauritzen ('32), 1966-67, Allan E.Charles ('27), 1968-69, MartinAnderson ('49), 1970-71, Hon.Robert F. Peckham ('45), 1971-72,Justin M. Roach, Jr. ('55), 1975-76,and Del Fu1ler, Jr. ('55), 1981-82.Over 600 graduates and friends ofthe School have served on the Boardsince its founding, sharing with theSchool the benefits of their rich andvaried experience."The record of excellence whichStanford Law School has achieved,"Dean Ely recently said, "is in nosmall measure due to the supportand service" that Board membershave "so generously provided."28Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Welcoming RemarksL. N. ("Les") Duryea '50Chair, Board of Visitorshe Board of Visitors, ChairmanT Duryea noted, has the "excellentpurpose" of enlarging the scope ofthe School's friendships and theperspective and wisdom such friendshipscan provide. The Board hashad some notable results over theyears, including the formation of aDean's council (now the AdvisoryCouncil on Law and Business); recommendations,since implemented,for changes in the curriculum; theestablishment of a chair for clinicallegal education; and growth in theLaw Fund.Members of the Board thus havea real opportunity to influence thedevelopment of the School, Duryeaobserved. In addition, he noted,there is the opportunity to becomebetter informed about the Schooland about the general course of legaleducation..Finally, he said, the meetings are"habitually a lot of fun."Victoria Diaz '75, assistant dean ofthe School, with Les Duryea '50,Board of Visitors chairStudents Sharon Gwatkin andEric Fingerhut in a witty reprise fromWest Coast Story (see page 57)Dean Ely with Carolyn Gunn, during the special West Coast Storyafter-dinner performance May 5Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer29

~o~ 4'-VVcYi~STATE OF THE SCHOOLJohn Hart ElyRichard E. Lang Professor and DeanJudge Betty Fletcher and Judge Tom Griesa '58 (first row), ChristopherSeaver '79 and Nelson Ishiyama '72 (second row)t's been a good year at StanfordI Law School," Dean Ely reported.Considerable strength has beenadded to the faculty and staff;. thestudent body is lively on severalfronts; and generally the School"feels good about itself."However, two problems are ofgreat concern, he said. One is thecost of housing in the area and theimpact this could have on facultyrecruitment. The second is thepressure on student aid funds, whichare essential in maintaining a diversestudent body, both ethnically and interms of social class. Student aid is,in fact, "our only real emergency," hesaid, a subject he expanded uponlater in the session.The faculty, Dean Ely observed, isfirst rate- "I don't think person forperson there is a better faculty in thecountry." Despite the School's smallsize, it embraces a broad spectrum ofopinion in an atmosphere not ofdivision but rather of "enormoustrust" - rare attributes which theDean is pledged to cultivate.Four new professors-includingMyron Scholes, the finance theoristwhose appointment was announcedearlier this year [see Stanford Lawyer,Winter 1982/83]-are joining thepermanent faculty, he said. Theyare: Professor Robert Gordon, aHarvard-trained legal historian whowas here last year as a visitingprofessor; Associate Professor EllenBorgersen, previously a partner withMorrison & Foerster in San Francisco;and Associate ProfessorThomas J. Campbell, who holdsdegrees in both economics and lawand was, until July 1, director of theFederal Trade Commission's Bureauof Competition. "The School's abilityto recruit excellent new faculty,"observed Dean Ely, "is obviouslyvery good."The Dean was also pleased toannounce that two more endowedchairs have been filled this year, bothwith distinguished members of thepresent faculty. The first is theKenneth and Harle MontgomeryProfessorship of Clinical LegalEducation, to which Paul Brest-anoriginator of the experimental CurriculumB and "one of the centerpiecesof the faculty as a scholar,teacher, and citizen" - has beenappointed second holder (followingAnthony Amsterdam). The secondis the new Ralph M. ParsonsProfessorship of Law and Business,which will have as its first holderKenneth E. Scott, an alumnus of theSchool ('56) with broad businessexperience as a practicing corporatelawyer, state banking regulator, andbank general counsel. A third chair,also new, was filled earlier in theyear: The Robert E. Paradise Professorshipof Natural ResourcesLaw, for which oil-and-gas law expertHoward Williams was, DeanEly noted, "the perfect choice."Turning to curricular developments,Dean Ely reported that theSchool's program in Law and Businesshas made enormous progress,which Professor Scott and ProfessorRonald Gilson would describe laterin the program. The Dean also drew30Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

attention to the establishment of aunified first-year curriculum-soonto be discussed by Dean Mannwhichwill incorporate the "bestfeatures" of the experimentalCurriculum B program.Looking to future curricular developments,Dean Ely announcedthat he had formed two new committees-oneon Law and Biotechnology,the other on Law and InformationScience - both including facultyfrom other schools in the University,to consider the implications for legaleducation of these fast-developingfields.The Dean also voiced his interestin "the study of law as a profession,"by which he meant not only professionalethics but also the sociology,economics, and "culture" of legalpractice, all areas where other academicdisciplines could shed light.Teaching methodology is anotherarea where fresh approaches areneeded, Dean Ely said. "How can wereinject the interest without reinjectingthe sadism?" The School thisyear made some changes in responseto this concern. One was to requirethat grades be entered in nearly all ofa student's courses. After the firstsemester, he explained, studentswill be able to take only five courseson a "3K" (essentially pass/fail) basis.Previously they had been able totake all their courses 3K, though ofcourse few did. (At the same time, henoted, the School raised the mediangrade from 2.75 to 3.2, a level closerto that of equivalent law schoolsthroughout the country.)The School's students are, DeanEly reiterated, "outstanding." Theclass that entered in the 1982/83year had a median LSAT score of753, and their composite undergraduategrade point was 3.79. Themedian age has dropped slightly, to23, though there are several olderstudents with experience in the workworld and/or other disciplines. Theclass is roughly one-third female.Applications for the coming year(1983/84) dropped about 20 percentfrom the previous year, which wouldbe worrisome except that, Dean Elyexplained, similar drops have alsooccurred at the other leading lawschools. The reason appears to be afoul-up at the Law School AdmissionsServices, which in an earlyranking for their revised test placedsome scores in a lower percentilethan they should have been, apparentlydiscouraging a number ofpotential applicants from trying fortop schools.Dean ElyThe Dean expressed concern,however, over the recent decline inminority group members acceptingadmission to the School. Minorityrepresentation in entering classeshas dropped during the past threeyears from 22 percent to 16 percentto the present 11 percent. Thistrend, Dean Ely said, must not beallowed to continue. Consequently,financial aid - a cornerstone of anyminorities recruitment effort - is"my highest priority."The School this year accepted twobig grants that will help, he continued:the A. Calder Mackay ScholarshipFund that accompanied theendowment for the new MackayProfessorship; and the Harold G.King Financial Aid Fund (to be recognizedin the naming of the MootCourt room). Another effort toincrease student aid funds is focusedon the Carl B. Spaeth Fund, forwhich a mail appeal will go out inJune. The Dean welcomed suggestionsand assistance from membersof the Board of Visitors in thisimportant endeavor.Over all, he reported, the School'sfund-raising efforts have been goingwell. "We made our Law Fund goal"this year, he said, "and in additionhave received some generous' largegifts."Dean Ely then expressed his verygreat pleasure in meeting and gettingto know Stanford Law alumni/ae- "a really enjoyable part of thejob for me" - at events here at theSchool, and in gatherings throughoutthe country. The program for thepresent Board of Visitors meeting,he said, was designed with "a greatdeal of free, and two-way, communicationin mind." Opportunities forquestions and discussion were builtinto each of the sessions, and lunchesfeaturing student presentations anddiscussion were scheduled for thesecond day. Another form of feedback-from attorneys taking part inthe special panel on "SuccessfulLawyering" put together by BoardChair Les Duryea- should be takenas an invitation for further participation.Dean Ely encouraged the Visitorsto take full advantage of allopportunities, formal and informal,to exchange ideas and observationswith him, the faculty, and the staffofthe School.He closed by introducing AssociateDean Keith Mann, saying,"There is no one who has had moreto do with the development of excellencein this School over the pastseveral decades."Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer31

~o~ Cff-VIMtu'0r-STATE OF THE SCHOOL continuedJ. Keith MannAssociate Dean, Academic AffairsDean MannRobert Paradise '29, TheodoreWeisman '31, and Professor HowardWilliams (holder ofthe new ParadiseChair in Natural Resources Law)Dean Mann reviewed the evolutionof the Stanford Law School curriculumfrom the late 1800s (the Harvardmodel), through the 1950s ("a realcurriculum taught by giants"), tothe innovations now being implemented."We have been laboring for somethingthat will be modern and thatwill prepare people not only for whatthey will be doing right out of lawschool but also twenty years later,"he said. Students should receive abalanced curricular experience thatimparts the necessary traditionalknowledge, cultivates the essentialtechnical lawyer's skills, and simultaneouslyfosters a capacity foradaptation to the changing worldin which they will live their professionallives.Dean Mann noted that even thosecourses that appear to have the samename as twenty years ago may differgreatly in content.In the past, he observed, the structureof education at most Americanlaw schools was fairly uniform. In recentyears, however, some schools,Stanford notably among them, havebegun to move in new directions."Times have changed, and issueshave changed," he said - "not to mentionstudents. The curriculum in allyears is being expanded, ways arebeing sought to familiarize studentswith the institutional arrangementsin which they are likely to work,more small group instruction isbeing provided, and students arebeing given more opportunity toeducate themselves."Stanford is, he said, in the forefrontof these developments. "Providingto all in the course of theirthree years a distinctively differentand progressively more advancedkind of academic or practical learningexperience remains a foremostbut elusive target."Dean Mann then outlined therevised first-year curriculum beingintroduced in 1983/84. This curriculumis based on the traditional firstyearsequence but incorporatesimportant elements of the experimentalCurriculum B, which ranparallel to the standard CurriculumA for the past three years. The distinctionbetween Curriculum Bandthe rest of the first-year program willhave been eliminated. The revisedfirst-year course of study, he said,seeks to offer the new law student "abroad exposure to the variety that isthe law and the variety of ways inwhich differing minds approach it."All entering students, Dean Mannexplained, will now begin theautumn term with a four-day program,designed and tested in "B," "tointroduce them to the study of law."Topics covered include case analysis,legal institutions, and law andsociety or legal culture. "Studentsseemed to appreciate the establishmentof an introductory foundationfacilitating the transition into theregular class structure," he said.The rest of the term will be devotedto the basic first-year subjects-CivilProcedure, Contracts,Criminal Law, and Torts, as well aslegal research and writing.The spring term includes twomore required courses (ConstitutionalLaw and Property) and acontinuation of legal research andwriting. In addition, students willchoose two or three electives fromamong a varied menu of "perspective"courses: Law and Philosophy(Jurisprudence), Law in RadicallyDifferent Cultures, History ofAmerican Law, Economics for Lawyers/ Finance Theory [see ((Law andBusiness" discussion below], Legislativeand Administrative Process,and Lawyering Process.Lawyering Process, Dean Mannexplained, is an innovative course,developed by Professor Paul Brestand several colleagues as part ofCurriculum B, which introducesstudents to "adversarial procedures,issues of professional responsibility,and alternative methods of settlingdisputes, such as arbitration."The development of the Economicsfor Lawyers / Finance Theorycourse is regarded as an importantstep in creating a modern businesslaw curriculum.In sum, Dean Mann said, "the revisedfirst-year curriculum representsa highly promising blend of thetraditional with the new."32Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Thomas F. McBrideAssociate Dean, AdministrationDean McBride, for whom this was afirst appearance before the Board ofVisitors, expressed his pleasure atcoming to Stanford.The School's financial situation, hereported, is very much affected bytrends both outside and within theUniversity. These trends includeinflation (especially evident in utilitycosts), government financial aidpolicies, substantial tuition increases(the 1983/84 Law School tuition is$9,178), and the financial resourcesof the University-which is experiencinga "real crunch" in recoveringactual direct and indirect costs fromresearch grants and contracts."The result," Dean McBride said,is that "we have to run to stay even."This year, the School was askedby University planners to pare itsbudget for fiscal 1984 by $120,000.This we did, McBride said, withminimal impact on program, by generatingsome new income throughsuch steps as increasing the applicationfee (from $35 to $40) and bymaking significant cuts in administrativeexpenses.Student aid needs are, Dean Mc­Bride said, another major concern.Since 1979, scholarship expenditureshave exhausted availablereserves. "We need to direct moredollars into financial aid, particularlyloans, recognizing that most of ourgraduates will have the futureearnings to comfortably afford loanrepayment," he observed."And we need to maintain theutmost flexibility in use of financialaid funds, making strategic allocationsbetween the relative levelsof scholarships and loan support."Dean Diaz and her staffare, he said,now examining the gift terms ofexisting School endowed and expendablefunds to see whether someportion might be appropriately redirectedto student aid, particularlystudent loan, purposes.The School is also stepping up itsefforts to collect delinquent loansfrom graduates. "Our overall delinquencyrate is about 5.2 percent,"Dean McBride noted. The centralUniversity administration has beenincreasingly aggressive in its collectionactions, and the Law School willalso be taking additional action.A third major area of activity forDean McBride has been the "computerization"of the Law School. "TheDickensian image of lawyers withink-stained fingers and yellow padsis simply not true here," he said."Both professors and administrativestaff are eager to employ the latesttechnologies."So far, IBM personal computershave been provided to faculty andsecretaries to meet basic wordprocessingneeds. And next year heanticipates substantial increases incomputer applications in the administrativefunctions of the LawSchool. Student access to computers,both for wordprocessing(term papers, etc.) and for actualclass assignments, is also planned.Two faculty members are presentlydeveloping computerized instructionalexercises.The ability to access research dataquickly will be increased next year,too, with the introduction of theWESTLAW legal research database. LEXIS is already availablein the Law Library. Dean McBrideexpects to see "improvements inwork-load patterns and productivity"in various areas of the School asa result of these technological advances.He concluded by saying that hispurpose, and that of the administrativestaff he supervises, is "to supportthe faculty and students in theessential educational enterprise."Dean McBrideFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer33

~o~ 4-(/141~STATE OF THE SCHOOL continuedVictoria S. DiazAssistant Dean, Development andAlumni/ae RelationsDeanDiazDean Diaz began by introducing hertwo closest aides, Elizabeth Lucchesi,director of alumni/ae relations'and Kate Godfrey, director ofthe Law Fund.Alumni/ae relations, Dean Diazsaid, "complement our developmentefforts by fostering the good feelingswhich generate the interest andsupport so vital to the School."Former students of the Schoolnowapproaching 6000 in numberarelocated throughout the country,she noted, with the majority (52percent) in California.Dean Diaz was pleased to reportthat several active School alumni/aesocieties now exist, including groupsin Los Angeles and the District ofColumbia. The School is encouragingthe further organization ofgroups in New York, Chicago, andother cities and areas."One of our goals during these firsttwo years of John Ely's deanship,"she said, "has been for him to meetas many of the School's alumni/aeas possible." The Dean has consequentlytraveled extensively, meetinggraduates and friends at a varietyof functions, an effort which willalways continue but with particularintensity through the coming academicyear.Dean Diaz then described thedevelopment, or fund-raising, programsof the School. These are intwo categories: the Annual GivingProgram (the "Law Fund") and theMajor Gifts Program.The Law Fund includes personalsolicitation at the "Quad" ($100 +)and "Inner Quad" ($1000 +) givinglevels, special reunion-year classdrives, and the annual appeal-aseries of mailings in which classagents play an important role.Since 1970, when the School firstbegan using volunteers extensively,the Fund performance has climbedmore than sevenfold-a tribute, shesaid, to the effectiveness and energyof those who have become involved.The Fund is, Dean Diaz noted, "animportant source of monies for theSchool." During the 1982 calendaryear, $927,242 was raised, of which$510,454 is being used to supporta portion of the School's 1982/83operating budget.Dean Diaz also mentioned theDeferred Giving Program, headedby Charles Stearns ('33), to encourageadvance planning by friends andgraduates of the School. "The Schoolhas been fortunate," she said, "toreceive a number of generousbequests in the past year that haveaugmented its endowment significantly."[A full report ofthe 1982fund yearis included in the Annual Report ofGiving elsewhere in this issue.]The School's development goalsfor next year, Dean Diaz said, are toraise the level of participation- nowonly 31 percent-of alumni/ae in theLaw Fund program; encouragemore Quad and Inner Quad volunteersto make solicitations in person;begin developing a sense of classidentification while future graduatesare still students; and begin solicitingnew graduates in the first yearafter commencement (rather thanwaiting a year, as is the currentpractice). "I think the sooner we canget graduates in the habit of givingnomatter what the amount - themore likely we are to increase ourlevel of participation," she said.Dean Diaz then turned to theMajor Gifts Program. "Most suchfund-raising efforts are," she said,"program- or project-specific." Thepriorities for the next three to fiveyears, she said, are student financialaid and faculty support (primarily forresearch and housing).The School has just launched acampaign-with a letter from ShirleyHufstedler to 500 graduates-toincrease the Carl B. Spaeth Fund,which provides financial aid tominority students.Potential new donors are, she said,being urged to adopt terms for theirgifts that allow the School maximumflexibility to allocate financial aidfunds where most needed, e.g.,scholarships or loans-at any giventime. "We are pleased that the S. H.Cowell Foundation, in its recentgrant, has done so," she said.In working out the complex termsof major gifts-including those involvingdeferred giving, real property,and various kinds of endowments-the School has available,Dean Diaz pointed out, the servicesof the University Office of DevelOpment'ssophisticated legal staff tohelp private counsel and/or donorsdevelop the best plan possible for thegift in question.Dean Diaz concluded with theobservation that "the School hasbeen blessed with the energies andcommitment of our graduates andfriends - many of them presenttoday-who are generous with theirtime and money. We are indeedgrateful."34Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Margo D. SmithAssistant Dean, Student AffairsDean Smith, a 1975 graduate of theSchool, began her first official presentationto the Board of Visitors bydescribing her new responsibilities."The Dean for Student Affairs,"she said, "ideally represents thestudents' concerns to the Dean, administration,and faculty." In addition,she makes herself available tocounsel individual students, assistsstudent organizations and, beginningin the fall of 1983, will administerthe externship program.One of Dean Smith's major goals,she said, is to maintain and increasethe number of minority students atStanford Law School. So far thisyear, she reported, 36 of the minorityapplicants offered admission tothe entering class have accepted.This represents a healthy reboundfrom the somewhat disappointingnumber of acceptances (21) at thistime the previous year. Of course, afew students will change their plans(19 of the 21 accepting actually enrolledlast fall), she noted, but "wecan still expect improved representationof minorities in the class enteringthis fall."Dean Smith will be traveling to theMidwest and East during the comingyear to carry the message to prospectivestudents that "California isnot the end of the world."Three "firsts" occurred in the Admissionsarea this year, she reported.The first was the new LSATwhich, to complicate matters, had apercentile ranking scale that wasinitially inaccurate. The scale hassince been corrected, and all shouldgo more smoothly next year.A second "first" was the introductionby the School of a $200tuition deposit, due at the time ofacceptance. This has proven nobarrier to committed students, whilediscouraging interim acceptancesfrom the uncommitted.The third new development DeanSmith described was the offer ofdeferred admission to those applicantswho requested such an arrangement.A number of students,including seven minority students,have taken advantage of this arrangement,many to pursue specialopportunities such as Rhodes andMarshall scholarships or workabroad, which should enhance theirpersonal development and theirinterest as classmates.Student-edited scholarly publications,Dean Smith noted, continue tobe "a source of pride" to the School.Plans for the upcoming volume ofthe Stanford Law Review include asymposium on Critical Legal Studieswith articles by four faculty members.The Stanford Journal of InternationalLaw drew praise for a recentissue on International Antitrust.And the Environmental Law Society,which this year published a revisionof its 1975 handbook on HistoricPreservation in California, has sevenother volumes in preparation.She then touched on the many andvaried student activities at theSchool, including 20 organizations(3 new this year), the Law Forum(which brought former West GermanChancellor Helmut Schmidt tocampus in April), La Raza (Hispanicstudents), and BLSA (blacks).Dean Smith closed with somereflections on student life at theSchool. "Stanford's smallness breedsan intimacy and supportiveness thatis seldom seen," she said. "Despitethe competition for grades and jobsin this age of the soft job market, ourstudents continue to care about thewell-being and success of theirfellow students - and that," sheconcluded, "is very special."_Dean SmithFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer35

~o~4VJ41~SUCCESSFUL LAWYERING:IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL EDUCATIONAT STANFORDPanelists Munger, Guggenhime, Duryea, and RenfrewL. N. DuryeaChair, Board of Visitorsour attorneys with long practicalFexperience participated in thisspecial panel. Board Chair L. N.Duryea, who organized the sessionand acted as its moderator, introducedhis guests: Richard E. Guggenhime(Harvard '32), a past presidentof Stanford's Board of Trusteesand former partner, now of counsel,to Heller, Ehrman, White & Mc­Auliffe; Charles T. Munger (Harvard'48), a founder and formerpartner of Munger, Tolles & Rickershauser,now serving as chairmanof Blue Chip Stamps; and Charles B.Renfrew (Michigan '56), whose careerincludes 15 years as partner inPillsbury, Madison & Sutro, 9 yearsas U.S. district judge (for NorthernCalifornia), and a new position asvice-president of Standard OilCompany of California. Duryea(Stanford '50) was a foundingpartner of his own Newport Beachfirm for 15 years until merging itwith Memel Jacobs Pierno & Gershlast year.Duryea reflected warmly upon theprofessional rewards of dealing withthe many attorneys who are outstandingpractitioners and. persons.But he also expressed concern aboutthe seeming lack of "balance, maturity,and judgment" of some welleducatedattorneys. Recognizingthat law schools alone cannot remedythis problem, he asked whether"anything can be done to guide thatbright student into some perceptionof judgment that makes him morevaluable when we hire his services."Law school is a sophisticated tradeschool, he observed, that guides usto learn to think. "But," he added,"into that thinking process that leadsus to decisions we need an assessmentof purpose, a sense of values,and the ability to determine thatsome solution may be better than aperfect solution."Characteristics among younglawyers that disappoint him include,he said: "the tendency to make everylegal matter a game, habitual cynicism,a dedication to negativecriticism, lack of reverence for theneed for solutions, feelings ofomnipotence that only he or she cansolve the problem, and indecisivenessby those too analytical andperfectionist to ever come to aconclusion."Duryea recalls suggesting toformer Dean Charles Meyers thatthe School teach students "somejudgment," to which Meyers retorted,"tell me how to teach it and 1will." All Duryea could say, at thatpoint, was "you might mention itonce in a while." That exchange, andmany personal experiences and conversations,led him to initiate thispanel.Duryea also cited a number ofbroader issues that he feels attorneysshould be concerned with,the most important being access tothe legal system. "1 travel with'comfortable' people," he said, "butfor personal matters they really can'tafford to open a file in my office."Those less fortunate, he pointed out,often find the cost of legal representationprohibitive - a situationthat "undermines our whole systembased on law."Acknowledging that the legal systemsuffers greatly from too muchlegislation (from both legislators andthe courts), he expressed his beliefthat the real problem was the participatingattorneys. "The tragedies ofill-prepared attorneys are wellknown," he said, "but the quietertragedy of the well-prepared attorneywithout the common sense toseek a solution is as great animpediment."Duryea concluded with a pithysummary of Harvard PresidentDerek Bok's recent critique of thelegal profession and education: "Thebrightest students go into the law.Our legal system is a mess."Each of the panelists who followsprovides a different perspective onthese problems, Duryea explained- Renfrew as a former judge,Munger as a client, and Guggenhimeas a practitioner of business law withextensive "societal involvement."36!Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

TheHon.CharlesB.RenhewJudge Renfrew drew attention to asplit in attitude toward the legal profession.Public polls indicate thatrespect and confidence in lawyers iseroding, he said. Yet if you talk toindividuals who have actually retainedlawyers, "they think theirs areable and effective."The dichotomy, though an ancientone, appears to be widening, Renfrewobserved. One reason may bethe ever-increasing number oflawyers we have in this countryalmost200 for every 10,000 citizens,which is over three times more thanin England, almost twentytimes morethan in Japan, and maybe 50,000more than in China.Another problem, he said, is therise in unnecessary, frivolouslawsuits that pursue private pettycauses rather than the public good."Americans have a propensity forturning social and political problemsinto legal problems," he noted. Perhapsthis is because they have moreconfidence in the judiciary than inother institutions. Or it could reflecta kind of insecurity arising from theindustrialization and urbanization ofour society.One result is an explosion in newlegislative proposals- as many as25,000 or 30,000 a year in Congress,5000 and up in state legislatures.Another is an "unbelievable pollution"of new laws and regulations,taking up almost 100,000 pages ofthe Federal Register each year.In such an environment, JudgeRenfrew believes, we need lawyerstrained not only in the "how of law"but also in the "why of law." Techniqueslike discovery, he pointedout, should be used not just "becausethey are there" but for some particularpurpose.Judge Thelton Henderson, Vaughan Williams '69, and James Siena '61"I think that what you have toremember is that you are trainingpeople to be professionals, membersof a learned profession, and techniquesand skills are simply notenough," Renfrew said. "Learning isa lifetime process and it should bedevoted toward the public. As soonas a profession stops serving thepublic, it becomes a trade."There is," he concluded, "anabsolute shortage of real professionalsin the law."Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer37

~o~of-VJM~SUCCESSFUL LAWYERING continuedDean Margo Smith '75, with Sally Schreiber '76 and EllenCorenswet '75Charles Silverberg '55 and Carl Robertson '64Charles T. Munger"I couldn't resist accepting Les'sinvitation," Mr. Munger began,"because to explain, even for aminute or two, what to a client ismost irritating about lawyers is anopportunity too tempting to miss!"Munger, paid tribute to the manylawyers that are persons of "exceptionaljudgment, honor, practicality,and decency." "However," he said,"we all know others where high IQpoints do not correlate at all wellwith judgment and honor."He cited as an example a brilliantformer Harvard classmate, now asenior partner in a large New Yorkfirm, who regards litigation as "asocially approved outlet for aggressionand uses the process to hurt theopposition as much as possible."Another problem Munger mentionedrelated to the observation byGeorge Bernard Shaw that everyprofession is a conspiracy againstthe laity-which Munger feels isonly partly true of law, but truenonetheless. "It's always irritating tobestow trust and pay money tosomebody who, even to a degree, isoperating in a conspiracy againstyou," he said. This can happen, hepointed out, when the career incentivesfor a young associate in a firmare different from the incentives ofthe clients whose cases are beinghandled.Munger's final complaint was"paying lawyers to learn the elementaryaspects of your business orof business in general." Theessentialdoctrines taught at Harvard andStanford business schools could, hebelieves, be readily incorporatedinto the three-year law curriculumwithout resort to ]D/MBA degrees.He also emphasized the importanceof teaching negotiation approaches,saying that "I'd make it arequired course if I were running theschool."Munger recognized, however,that the characteristics he criticizedin lawyers cannot be blamed on thelaw schools, which are, he said, "in away a more honorable culture thaneither the law firms or the businessfirms."Ultimately, he said, the mosteffective way to improve the judgmentand honor of members of thelegal profession is simply to admitmore people with those attributesto law school. Identifying such individualsthrough the admissionsprocess is a challenge, he admits, buthis view is that "it could be done."38Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Richard E. GuggenhimeMr. Guggenhime observed many"common threads" in the remarks ofhis copanelists, as well as in publishedstatements by Harvard PresidentBok and Dean Ely, with whomhe is largely in agreement."I certainly despair over thepractice of law in an adversarial,gamesmanship atmosphere," hesaid. "The tone of the legal professiontoday is markedly more aggressivethan it was thirty years ago."He noted an increased emphasison "the bottom line." Today, hepointed out, fees in big-city law firmsare based not on service but on time."The result is that it deprives thelawyers in such firms of opportunitiesto be of service to their community."Guggenhime expressed doubtwhether senior partners in the firmwhere he is now of counsel couldhave the opportunity he enjoyed in1964-67 of serving as president ofthe Stanford University Board ofTrustees, a task which, he said, took"at least half my time."He congratulated the Law Schoolon its new program of extendingloans to students interested inexploring public service and governmentwork opportunities for asummer [see pp. 53-55]."One of the hardest things to teacha young lawyer is judgment," hecontinued. Experience can be important,but so also is "a willingness toaccept the right time to make a deal,to accept something less than a 100percent victory."Maybe you can teach your people,"he said, "that good agreementsare ones that your client can live withand the other fellow can live with."Guggenhime ended with twowords of pungent advice to thoseengaged in gamesmanship and adversarialtactics - "Cool it!"Lucinda Lee '71 and JerryRobinson '60Justice Rehnquist (right) at the Board of Visitors banquet May 6.Mrs. Rehnquist is joined at the near table by Dean Ely andChairman Les Duryea.The panel presentations stimulatedmany comments frommembers of the Board of Visitorsconcerning the role that both lawschools and law firms do or shouldplay in shaping young lawyers."It is important," said Les Duryeain a thoughful summary of the session,"for us to get the studentsthinking about solutions rather thanthe creating of problems.".Nicholas Counter '66Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 39

@.oarcA 4l!141~THE CONSTITUTION, RACE, AND THE SCHOOLS:CON LAW FACULTY AGREE TO DISAGREEThe School's constitutional lawfacwty was featured during theBoard of Visitors meeting in a panelchaired by Dean Ely. He and fourcolleagues - Professors Paul Brest,William Cohen, Thomas Grey, andGerald Gunther- discussed the caseofJohnson v. Chicago Board ofEducation,604 R2d 504 (C.A. 7, 1979), involvinga plan whereby the schoolboard, reacting to a study of historicalpatterns of "white flight,"decreed that once the non-white studentpercentage at a given highschool exceeded 60 percent, a lotterywould be held, and the non-whitestudents thus selected would bebussed to white or integrated highschools on the North Side. TheSeventh Circuit upheld the plan.Obviously the case is an excruciatinglydifficwt one, in that it involveddistinguishing among peopleon the basis of their race, and infact-albeit in an apparent attemptto serve the wtimate cause of racialintegration - excluding studentsfrom certain schools because theyare members of racial minorities.The panel agreed that the case was amind- and heart-twister, and that theSeventh Circuit's opinion, byadoptingthe apparent attitude that it didnot present difficwt constitutionalissues, hardly did justice to itscomplexity.At that point the panel's agreementbroke down, however, and indeed- given the various asymmetricalcombinations of rationale andresult presented by the five panelists- many in the audience beganto feel that they were listening to theverbal equivalent of a game of "cat'scradle."Dean ElyDean Ely led off, and after sketchingthe facts and outlining the relevantlegal tests, suggested that althoughhe found the situation difficwt andfraught with danger, he would beinclined - at least without furtherknowledge of the Chicago scene - touphold the plan.The reason courts have historicallytreated as "suspect" under theFourteenth Amendment laws thatdiscriminate on the basis of race, hesuggested, is that they have rightlypresumed, unless the surroundingcircumstances provided a rebuttal,that such laws were motivated byracial prejudice. The boilerplatelegal requirements of a "compellingstate interest" and a "close fit" betweenthe compelling interest andthe racial classification involved, hesuggested, are best understood thus,as means of checking the bona fidesof government claims that there existsa benign explanation for theracial classification in issue. (Theassignment of black undercoverpolice officers to duty in Harlem wasone example cited.)He suggested that this sort ofrebuttal seemed available inJohnson,and that although an explicitly racialline was used, the overall purposeseems rather clearly to have been topromote racial integration by avoidingthe sort of "white flight" thatexperience had shown was likely toensue when the 60 percent "tippingpoint" had been reached. To construethe Fourteenth Amendment asbarring such a law, he argued-thusalmost certainly ensuring that theschools in question would soon endup 100 percenfracially segregatedwouldbe to lose the constitutionalforest in the trees.Professor BrestProfessor Brest began by addressingthe reasons for the "suspect classification"test. He agreed with DeanEly that the test responds to the suspicionthat racial classifications aremotivated by prejudice, but thoughtthat it is also designed to protectblacks against the harm, inswt, orstigma of being branded inferior towhites or not fit to associate withthem. He thought that the schoolboard's policy in Johnson implicatedboth of these concerns: the policywas as consistent with the motivationto protect white children fromattending school with "too many"blacks as it was with the professedbenign motive, and members of theblack community might well perceiveit as a racial slur.In any event, to meet the demandingstandards of the suspectclassification test, the school boardmust demonstrate that there wereno alternative approaches to desegregatingthe schools that did notrequire using racial quotas, and thisit had not done.40Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Professor CohenProfessor GreyProfessor GuntherProfessor Cohen began by admittingthat he had "borrowed" most of hisbasic ideas about constitutional law.From Dean Leon Green's writings ontort law, he had borrowed the ideathat no abstract rule of law meansanything except as it is administeredin the process of adjudication; fromJudge Hans Linde he had borrowedthe idea that a constitution must beinterpreted as a practical charter ofgovernment, to give meaningful directionto legislatures and executiveofficials. As a result, he favored"bright-line" solutions to constitutionalproblems, if feasible.He also "borrowed" his analysisof the problem before the panelborrowingDean Ely's approach andProfessor Brest's conclusion. DeanEly's answer made sense whenbenign race-conscious policies didnot work to the disadvantage ofminority individuals. Political restraintsare not reliable, however,when minorities are required to paythe costs of a benign policy. Theproblem with the school board's pursuitof integration in this case wasthat non-whites were chosen to paythe costs.Professor Cohen concluded that,no matter how "benign" the policypursued, racial line-drawing shouldnever ("well, almost never") be permittedif minority individuals wereharmed.Ely and Brest (toP),Grey, Cohen andGuntherProfessor Grey said that race discriminationlaw oscillates betweenan objective or formal approach,which aspires to treat all race-consciouslaws and policies alike, and amore subjective but substantive approach,which looks behind the formof a law or policy to try and seewhether or not it is actually racist.He inclines toward the substantiveend of the spectrum in his own approach,while recognizing that itcreates more tough judgment callsasin this case.On the one hand, this plan discriminatesagainst blacks, in partbecause of white racial prejudice.Black students are bussed to distanthigh schools in white areas, whilewhite students are not bussed to distanthigh schools in black areas,though both kinds of bussing wouldequally further the policy of maintainingracial balance. Racial prejudicejoins with other factors to maketwo-way bussing unacceptable towhites, who can block it politically,and if it were imposed could defeatits purpose by leaving the Chicagoschool system.On the other hand, we obviouslyrank white parents' free choice tomove to the suburbs or to put theirchildren in private school over publicschool integration in our implicitconstitutional value scheme. Thispresently entrenched priority makesit the lesser of the evils - the "leastracist alternative" - to permit theone-way bussing, if the factualpremises behind the plan stand up toindependent judicial scrutiny. Anofficial decision favoring some integrationover none should not befound to violate equal protection.In concluding the panelists' statements,Professor Gunther illustratedthe permutations and combinationsof positions possible amonga diverse group of constitutionalscholars, by asserting that hedisagreed with the premises of DeanEly but joined his result.Contrary to Dean Ely, he insistedon strict scrutiny of all racial classifications,even "benign" ones. But hethought the Board plan should withstandeven strict scrutiny. He arguedthat the "compelling state interest"branch of the strict scrutiny test wasprobably met here: integration hadbecome such a central value in ourlaw since Brown v. Board ofEducationthat a school board's effort toachieve it should be respected, evenwhere it apparently acted to counterde facto rather than de jure schoolsegregation.The more difficult issue was thesecond branch of the strict scrutinystandard: were the Board's meansnecessary to achieve its integrationobjectives? He agreed we should beespecially skeptical when the meansfall harshly on the minority race, ashere; and he was troubled by the factthat the Board had apparently reliedmainly on "impressions" about thepercentage of blacks that would constitutethe tipping point and causewhite flight, resegregating theschool system. But studies in othercases had demonstrated that the tippingpoint problem was a real one.He concluded that the Board hadapparently addressed a genuineobstacle to integration in good faith,and that its effort should be upheld,even under his strict scrutiny approach.•Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer41

@o~4t1J41~.LAW AND BUSINESS PROGRAMKenneth E. ScottRalph M Parsons ProfessorofLaw and BusinessRonald J. GilsonProfessor ofLawrofessor Gilson, after an intro­by Professor Scott (whoPductionspoke again later in the program),reported that the Business and LawProgram had progressed even morequickly than expected. "We'vereally accomplished an extraordinaryamount of the agenda thatI've described in past presentationsto the Board of Visitors," he said­"not only quickly, but also well andbroadly."The plan has been, he explained,to establish a comprehensive sequencebeginning in the first yearand continuing with increasing sophisticationthrough the secondsemester of the third year. The advancedwork was conceived as takingtwo directions: (1) a heavy planningorientation, with applications toboth small and large business; and(2) a theoretical orientation, includingresearch, both for its ownsake and for its value in illuminatingthe planning effort.A substantial portion of thisagenda is now in place for thecoming (1983/84) school year-inaddition to which a new and relevantsubject area, which Professor Gilsonhad not previously described to theVisitors, has also been developed.This, he said, involves innovativecurriculum efforts by ProfessorRobert Mnookin in the estate andfamily planning area.Professor Gilson then describedeach development in more detail.A new first-year course, calledEconomics for Lawyers / FinanceTheory, is designed to provide thekind of finance background uponwhich to build a business program.Law schools, he noted, have traditionallyregarded the first-yearcurriculum as sacrosanct, so theearly introduction of this newsubject matter-which relates tosome of the needs Charlie Mungermentioned earlier in the day-is ofinterest.Equally significant, Professor Gilsonnoted, is the fact that the coursewill be taught by Myron Scholes, oneof the nation's preeminent financialeconomists.The advanced work for third-yearstudents is also coming along,Professor Gilson continued. His owncourse on corporate acquisitions-which he views as simply a planningcourse for large corporations-isworking well. In fact, thematerials used for the course-linking the legal and financialeconomics aspects of corporateacquisitions - will be published byFoundation Press, and the course isalready being taught at two otherschools.The second element of the plan forthe advanced curriculum- theoreticalresearch- began in 1981/82when Professor Scholes, then avisiting professor at the BusinessSchool, joined with our ProfessorScott to teach a course in securitieslaw research. This course (to bedescribed in Professor Scott's presentation)is, Professor Gilson said,"a very exciting enterprise and wellworth your attention in comingyears."Professor Gilson then describedthe new area of individual and familyfinancial planning which developedrecently as a result of work byProfessor Mnookin.Professor Mnookin has put togethertwo courses. The first is abasic family and estate planningcourse, in which life-cycle planningis seen as an integrated processinvolving choices among a variety ofoptions only one of which is traditionaltestamentary disposition.Five problem sets are assignedduring the semester, and studentsdo two substantial planning memorandain lieu of a final examination.Next year, Gilson continued,Mnookin will be doing an advancedseminar on family financial planning,which will require students tobecome familiar with the use ofcomputers in modeling and analyzingplanning alternatives.Professor Gilson also called attentionto another interest of ProfessorMnookin's, which has broad applicationnot only to business law,but also to the general questions ofphilosophy and attitude raised in theearlier session on successful lawyering-namely alternative methodsof dispute settlement. "When wetalk about poor judgment," Gilsonobserved, "we often mean over-useof adversarial approaches." Negotiationand mediation are stressed in acourse for second- and third-yearstudents developed by ProfessorMnookin and Bea Moulton, a lecturerat the School.Gilson concluded with the observationthat there is probably no otherlaw school that has gotten as far asStanford in curriculum developmentand innovation, of which the Businessand Law Program is an excellentexample.Professor Scott then described theproject-a research seminar basedon changes in securities prices-thathe and Professor Scholes introducedin the 1981/82 school year.The seminar, he says, involvesstudents in empirical research usingtheories concerning various factorsthat may affect the prices of individualstocks. The data understudy is of unusual quality, ProfessorScott noted, having been gatheredby Professor Scholes and his predecessorsat the Center for Research inSecurity Prices, at the University ofChicago. These data include day-to-42Stanford Lawyer Fall1983

day stock market returns for boththe New York and American exchangesfrom the present back as faras 1926.A computer program has been developedfor differentiating betweengeneral ups and downs in the marketand changes specific to a given stock(a technique called "cumulativeabnormal return analysis"),Professor Scott explained. "Thecomponent of return on a stock thatis abnormal or unexpected," he said,"can be used as a measure of theimpact of certain events on thecompany and on its stockholders."These research techniques arebeing employed at the Law Schoolby students not necessarily strong inmathematics or computer skills, totest theories as to the impact oftender offers, mergers, acquisitions,and other events.One student last year "broke newground," Professor Scott reported,by looking at the aftermath of initialtender offers that failed. A dramaticdifference was found between thestock returns of firms that receiveda second bid (up a cumulative 50percent) vs. the value for firms notbid for again (a gradual return toprice levels before the first bid). Thestudent's findings were subsequentlyconfirmed by a larger studyelsewhere.Research like this will, Scott predicted,provide "an experiential basethat will become increasingly importantto people in the practice of law,including those who are litigators orinvolved in the legislative process."It's an interesting process toengage in at the student level," hesaid in closing, "and I think it isbeneficial for students to be aware ofthis kind of research and how it isaccomplished." _Professor Scott, Charles Munger, and Judge William NorrisFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer43

@otwrA 4vJ41~ .SUMMARY AND ADVISORY SESSIONG. Williams Rutherford '50 and Alan Rosenberg, AB '49r. Duryea, speaking as chairM of the Board of Visitors, expressedthe members' appreciationand enjoyment of the proceedingsand interactions that had taken placethroughout the meeting.Dean Ely then commented onsome concerns raised in conversationswith various members.Admissions decisions, he explained,"are not made by computer-they're made on a very personalbasis." The folders of each applicantare reviewed carefully, andwe consider not only LSAT scoresand grade-point averages, but alsowritten recommendations and informationon past academic work experiences,interests and activities,and other relevant characteristics."We're a small law school," Dean Elynoted, "and we're able to make thedecisions more carefully."The Dean also acknowledged thevery strong message, expressedmany times throughout the meeting,that law schools should "give moreattention to alternative methods ofdispute settlement- methods otherthan litigation."The course by Professor Mnookinand Ms. Moulton mentioned earlierin the program speaks directly tothat concern, the Dean observed.Aptly titled Alternative Methodsof Dispute Settlement, it examinesnegotiation, mediation, arbitration,and adjudication, with readings fromeconomics, social psychology, decisiontheory, and legal theory.The Lawyering Process course forfirst-year students, Dean Ely continued,is also "centrally designed tosocialize students to the idea thatmany or most legal disputes can,and probably should, be settled bytalking about them and negotiatingrather than actually taking them tocourt."As these examples indicate, DeanEly said, the School is well aware ofthe need for education in alternativemethods of dispute settlement, buthe agreed with the Visitors that furtherprogress in that direction wouldbe eminently desirable-not only forthe School but also for the professionas a whole.Dean Ely then asked for questionsand comments from the members ofthe Board of Visitors.One member mentioned that studentsin the small lunch group inwhich she participated had expressedthe feeling that perhaps theSchool "doesn't make it easy enoughto get into public interest law."Dean Ely responded that theSchool is, in fact, doing a great dealto ensure that students are informedof their many career options, asdetailed in his memo to studentsissued January 25 [see pp. 53-55], andin meetings sponsored by the PlacementOffice and by the faculty. Thiseffort will continue, he said, butultimately, the choice is and mustbe the responsibility of the studentsthemselves.The possibility of starting apooled, revolving student-aid loanfund was suggested by anothermember of the Board. Deans Diazand McBride responded that theywould pursue the idea, to seewhether it was administrativelypracticable.In closing, Dean Ely thankedBoard Chair Les Duryea for his fineservice during the 1982/83 term andparticularly for his initiative in organizingthe stimulating panelon Successful Lawyering-a "uniquecontribution" to this year's Board ofVisitors meeting agenda. _44Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

BOARD OF VISITORS: 1982-83Terms ExpireAugust 31,1983Howard P. Allen '51Rosemead, CaliforniaFred W. Alvarez '75Albuquerque, New MexicoLeroy Bobbitt '69Los Angeles, CaliforniaJackie R. Brown '75Seattle, WashingtonPhillip E. Brown '52San Francisco, CaliforniaJose Alberto Cardenas '77Phoenix, ArizonaEverett B. Clary'49Los Angeles, CaliforniaEdwin H. Clock '75Tiburon, CaliforniaMary B. Cranston '75San Francisco, CaliforniaHon. Betty Binns Fletcher,AB '43 (University ofWashington, LLB '56)Seattle, WashingtonSamuel K. Freshman '56Los Angeles, California*Del Fuller, Jr. '55San Francisco, CaliforniaDiane Fields Geocaris '75Chicago, IllinoisGeorge M. Henzie '49Los Angeles, CaliforniaMorgan Hodgson '73Washington, D.C.Joseph G. Hurley(Catholic University ofAmerica, JD '50)North Hollywood, CaliforniaNelson M. Ishiyama,JD/MBA'72San Francisco, CaliforniaC. Bradford Jeffries '55San Francisco, CaliforniaDonald P. Kennedy, AB '40(USC, LLB '48)Santa Ana, CaliforniaWilliam T. Lake '68Washington, D.C.R. Allan Leedy, Jr. '67Beaverton, OregonLouis Lieber, Jr., AB '30(USC, JD '36, LLM '54)Los Angeles, CaliforniaRichard B. McDonough'49San Francisco, California*Jerome C. Muys '57Washington, D.C.George H. Norton '57Palo Alto, California*Donald V. Petroni '58Los Angeles, California*Norman B. Richards '51San Francisco, CaliforniaKenneth Roberts(University of Texas, JD '51)Houston, TexasPaul L. Saffo III '80Palo Alto, CaliforniaRoy J. Schmidt, Jr. '66Los Angeles, CaliforniaJoel H. Sharp, Jr. '60Orlando, FloridaHon. Winifred Johnson Sharp'61Daytona Beach, FloridaHugh Shearer III '51Honolulu, HawaiiC. Grant Spaeth, AB '54(Harvard, )JD '57)Palo Alto, CaliforniaLeonard Ware(Syracuse University, LLD '53)Palo Alto, CaliforniaCharles R. Wichman '52Honolulu, HawaiiFred A. Wool '29San Jose, CaliforniaTerms ExpireAugust 31, 1984Robert F. Ames '60(Stanford, MBA '57)San Diego, CaliforniaJames E. S. Baker(Northwestern, LLB '36)Chicago, IllinoisAlan Beban '63Los Altos, CaliforniaSusan W. Bird '74New York, New YorkJohn Broad'42San Francisco, CaliforniaCharles R. Bruton '71Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaGeorge W. Coombe, Jr.(Harvard, LLB '49)San Francisco, CaliforniaEllen B. Corenswet '75Boston, MassachusettsJ. Nicholas Counter III '66Sherman Oaks, CaliforniaHon. John J. Crown, AB '51(Northwestern, LLB '55)Chicago, Illinoisl*L. N. Duryea '50Newport Beach, California*Member ofExecutive Cmnmittee1 *Chainnan, Executive Cmnmittee2 *Vice Chainnan, Executive CmnmitteeFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer45

David L. Engel(Harvard, JD '73)Boston, Massachusetts*Marjorie W. Evans '72Palo Alto, CaliforniaFrank E. Farella '54San Francisco, CaliforniaG. Edward Fitzgerald '53Los Angeles, CaliforniaJohn G. Giumarra, Jr. '65Bakersfield, CaliforniaHon. Thomas P. Griesa '58New York, New YorkJohn R. Griffiths '60Palo Alto, CaliforniaEdward Hayes, Jr. '72Washington, D.C.Hon. Thelton Henderson(Boalt, JD '62)San Francisco, California*Roderick M. Hills '55Washington, D.C.John B. Hurlbut, Jr. '64Costa Mesa, CaliforniaFernando Inzunza, JD/MBA '78Los Angeles, CaliforniaLeonade D. Jones, JD/MBA '73Washington, D.C.Lucinda Lee '71San Francisco, CaliforniaCharles J. Meyers(University of Texas, LLB '49;Columbia, LLM '53, JSD '64)Denver, ColoradoKenneth F. Montgomery(Harvard, LLB '28)Chicago, IllinoisSeth D. Montgomery '65Santa Fe, New MexicoJames T. Morton '48San Mateo, California*Hon. William A. Norris '54Los Angeles, CaliforniaJ. Dan Olincy '53Los Angeles, CaliforniaStuart Thorne Peeler '53Tucson, ArizonaRichard H. Riddell, AB '38(Harvard, LLB '41)Seattle, WashingtonFrank H. Roberts(University of Michigan, JD '48)San Francisco, CaliforniaCarl W. Robertson '64Santa Monica, CaliforniaJerry H. Robinson '60San Francisco, California*Alan S. Rosenberg, AB '49(Columbia, LLB '52, NewYork University, LLM '60)New York, New YorkSally Ann Schreiber '76Dallas, TexasIrwin H. Schwartz '71Seattle, WashingtonGeorge A. Sears '52San Francisco, CaliforniaChristopher T. Seaver,JD/MBA'79Santa Monica, CaliforniaJohn D. Shyer '81New York, New YorkJames V. Siena '61Washington, D.C.*Charles D. Silverberg '55Los Angeles, CaliforniaSamuel D. Thurman '39Salt Lake City, UtahJames M. Wadsworth '64Buffalo, New YorkMilton M. Younger '56Bakersfield, CaliforniaTerms ExpireAugust 31,1985Joseph W. Bartlett II '60New York, New YorkChristine C. Curtis '71San Francisco, CaliforniaPatricia A. Cutler '71San Francisco, CaliforniaCharles C. Dietrich '52San Francisco, CaliforniaRonald K. Fujikawa '73Los Angeles, CaliforniaRobert Garcia '78New York, New YorkTheodore W. Graham '63San Diego, CaliforniaHon. Cynthia H. Hall '54Los Angeles, CaliforniaHon. Shirley M. Hufstedler '49Los Angeles, CaliforniaPeter T. Jones(Harvard, LLB '57)San Francisco, CaliforniaJohn D. Jorgenson '50Menlo Park, CaliforniaCharles A. Legge '54San Francisco, CaliforniaEdgar A. Luce, Jr. '48San Diego, California2*G. Williams Rutherford '50San Diego, CaliforniaMarsha Elaine Simms '77New York, New YorkGeorge E. Stephens, Jr. '62Los Angeles, CaliforniaVaughn C. Williams '69New York, New YorkRichard H. Zahm '53Pebble Beach, California46Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

New Faculty:Gordon,Borgersen,and CampbellThe Stanford Law facultywas enriched this fall bythe addition of three newfaculty members - alegal historian, a formerlaw firm partner, and aformer high governmentofficial.Robert WatsonGordonProfessor Gordon wasinvited to join the facultyafter a year as a visitingprofessor. An expert inlegal history, Gordonwas previously a member(since 1977) of theUniversity of Wisconsinlaw faculty.He earned both hisAB ('67) and JD ('71)degrees at Harvard,where he served (in1968) as assistant to thedirector of the Institute ofPOlitics at the John F.Kennedy School of Government.GordonBetween college andlaw school Gordon wasa reporter for the Louisville,Kentucky Courier­Journal and for News-week magazine.After graduation fromlaw school he worked fora year in the office of theMassachusetts attorneygeneral, then joining (in1972) the faculty of theState University of NewYork at Buffalo.His many writings includea book in progresson "the contribution ofleading Americanacademic and practicinglawyers between 1870and 1910 to the constructionof modernideas of the rule of law."Gordon's teachingsubjects at Stanford areHistory of American Law,Business Associations,and Administrative Law.Gordon is a director ofthe American Society forLegal History and a trusteeof the Law and SocietyAssociation (forwhich he chairs theCommittee on the JamesWillard Hurst Prize).He is also a memberof the Selden SocietyI (for the history of English--=~",--.., law) and of the Conferencefor Critical LegalStudies.Gordon is in addition aconsultant for the NationalEndowment for theHumanities, the AmericanJudicature Society,and the Federal TradeCommission.Ellen BorgersenAssociate ProfessorBorgersen comes toStanford from the SanFrancisco firm of Morrison& Foerster, whereshe concentrated oncommercial litigation.A graduate of AntiochCollege (SA '72), sheearned her law degreeat the University of(continued)Schmidt (left) with Dean ElyHelmut Schmidt Meets with StudentsHelmut Schmidt, former chancellor of West Germany,visited the School in April for an informal talkwith students.An overflow crowd listened attentively as the Europeanstatesman explained the strong desire of hiscountry for detente and arms control.At the same time, he endorsed the presence inEurope of conventional forces, saying that "Russiashould never doubt American resolve to defend itsallies."Schmidt generally refrained from criticizing currentU.S. policies. But in answer to a question about SanSalvador, he observed that "there's much too muchtalk in the U.S. about Central America," which, hepointed out, is a small area far from our borders. Wewould be better advised, he said, to focus on helpingour large neighbor, Mexico, to "stabilize itseconomic and social conditions."Schmidt, who was in the Bay Area on a privatevisit, appeared at the Law School at the invitation ofDavid Lempert, president of the student-run StanfordLaw Forum.Other guests of the Forum last year were formerCIA director Stansfield Turner and a parade of presidentialhopefuls from the past and present. Thepoliticians - Eugene McCarthy, Pete McCloskey,Harold Stassen, Ed Clark, Gary Hart, and MorrisUdall - along with several political scientists, werepart of a Forum series designed, according to Lempert,"to present differing views on the directionsAmerica should be taking in the 1980s and to commenton the issues and intrigues which will surroundthe 1984 presidential contest."•Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 47

New Faculty (cont.)Michigan Law School(JD '76), graduatingmagna cum laude, withelection to the Order ofthe Coif. -While at Michigan, sheearned awards in thesubjects of contracts,civil procedure, andtrusts and estates, aswell as being associateeditor and project editorof the law review.Broadly educated, heholds degrees in bothlaw (JD '76, Harvard)and economics (BA andMA '73, and PhD '80,University of Chicago).As a Chicago undergraduate,Campbellwas elected president ofthe student governmentand a member of PhiBeta Kappa. He hadcompleted his coursework for his doctoratewhen awarded his B.A.and was the youngeststudent ever 10 pass thePh.D. core examinationin economics at Chicago.From 1978 to 1980 hewas in private practicewith Winston & Strawn ofChicago, where he specializedin antitrust,employment, and generallitigation.Campbell then becamea 1980/81 WhiteHouse Fellow, in theOffice of the Chief ofStaff at the White House.In 1981, he wasappointed executiveassistant to EdwardSchmults, deputy attorneygeneral of the UnitedStates, and, in Octoberof that year, to theFTC post.Professor Campbellis teaching Stanfordcourses in Economicsand Finance Theory,Business Associations,International Law, andI;conomics for Lawyers.•cisco and New YorkCity.Brest, who is a constitutionallavv scholar aswell as an innovative ­teacher, has becomesecond holder of theKenneth and HarleMontgomery Professorshipin Clinical LegalEducation.The Montgomery chairwas established in 1980by Mr. and Mrs. KennethBorgersenBorgersen served asclerk to Justice Stewartof the Supreme Court in1977/78, after a yearwith Judge Frank M.Coffin of the U.S. Courtof Appeals (1 st Circuit).She joined Morrison &Foerster in 1978, becominga partner in 1982.Borgersen is a memberof both the Californiaand Washington, D.C.,bars.She is teaching CivilProcedure, in addition tocourses in the businesslaw area.Thomas J. CampbellAssociate ProfessorCampbell was previouslydirector of the FederalTrade Commission'sBureau of Competition,in Washington, D.C.CampbellTwo Nobel Prize economists- Milton Friedman(his faculty advisor)and George Stigler (dissertationcommitteemember) - participatedin Campbell's Chicagostudies.At Harvard, he was aneditor of the law review,graduating magna cumlaude.Campbell clerked forJudge George E. Mac­Kinnon of the U.S. Courtof Appeals (D.C. Circuit)and for Justice White ofthe U.S. Supreme Court(in 1977/78).Scott and BrestNamed toEndowed ChairsProfessors Kenneth E.Scott and Paul Bresthave been appointed toendowed chairs at theLaw School.Scott, an expert incorporate and securitieslaw and banking regulation,is first holder of theRalph M. Parsons Professorshipin Law andBusiness. The chair isnamed in memory of thelate Mr. Parsons, founderof the worldwide engineeringand constructionfirm that bears his name.Funding has been providedby the Ralph M.Parsons Foundation ofLos Angeles following achallenge grant from theWilliam Randolph HearstFoundation of San Fran-Montgomery of Northbrook,Illinois. Its firstholder, Professor AnthonyAmsterdam, leftStanford in 1981.ScottKenneth E. ScottScott, the new ParsonsProfessor of Law andBusiness, is a 1956graduate of the Schooland past article editorof the Stanford Law Review.He previously earnedan AB in economicsfrom William and MaryCollege, where he wasclass valedictorian and amember of Phi BetaKappa. He then attendedPrinceton as a WoodrowWilson Fellow, receivinghis MA in 1953.Following law school,48Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Scott spent six years inprivate practice, specializingin corporateand securities law andinternational financing,with the firms of Sullivan& Cromwell, in NewYork, and Musick, Peeler& Garrett, in Los Angeles.Scott is a member ofthe bars of New York,Washington, D.C., andCalifornia.In 1961, he was givenmajor regulatory aU~horityover the Callfo~nlasavings and loan Industry,as chief deputy savingsand loan commissionerand head ofthe Los Angeles office ofthe state S&L agency.He then served, from1963 to 1968, as generalcounsel of the FederalHome Loan Bank of SanFrancisco. And in 1968he joined the Stanfordfaculty. .Scott is author of artIcleson administrativelaw, banking regulation,corporation law, secu~-.ities regulation, and cIvilprocedure, an~ cC?authorof Retail BankIng In theElectronic Age: The Lawand Economics ofElectronic Funds Transfer(1977) and of EC?onomicsof CorporatIonLaw and SecuritiesRegulation (1980).(An article based on arecent speech by ProfessorScott, "Thrift Institutionsin a ChangingWorld," is publishedelsewhere in this issue.)Scott's courses atStanford are BusinessAssociations, FinancialInstitutions, and SecuritiesRegulation.Paul BrestProfessor Brest, the newappointee to the ~~ntgomerychair in clinicallegal educatio~, playeda leading role In developingthe experi~entalCurriculum B. ThiS programlaid the groundworkfor a number of .significant innovations Inthe School's first-yearcurriculum beginningwith the class enteringthis fall.The new LawyeringProcess course - whichBrest pioneered withAssociate ProfessorCharles C. Marson and.Assistant Professor WilliamSimon - is taughtthrough simulated clini~alexercises and work Insmall groups, as w~1I asthrough classroom Instruction.Brest andSimon have also workedtogether in integra~ingacademic study Withclinical teaching involvingreal-life clients.Constitutional lawissues are the focus ofhis scholarly work, andhe is coauthor of a creativecasebook in thefield, Processes of ConstitutionalOecision-Making (2d ed, 1982).This book focuses on theprocess by which any.decision maker - legislator,administrator, orjudge - goes about determiningwhat the Constitutionpermits or r~quires.Question~ of InstitutionalauthOrity andprocedure are also exploredin depth.Brest earned his BA atSwarthmore College in1962, and then attendedHarvard, where heearned his law degreemagna cum laude andwas Supreme Court a~ddevelopments not.e editorfor the law review.From 1966 to 1968Brest was an attorneywith the NAACP LegalDefense and EducationalFund in Jackson, Mississippi.He then served at theSupreme Court as lawclerk for Justice John M.Harlan, after which hecame to Stanford.He was elected in1982 to membership inthe American Academyof Arts and Sciences.In April of this year,Professor Brest presentedNorthwestern UniversityLaw School's JuliusRosenthal Found~tionLecture Series. HIsthree lectures were titled"Constitutional Discourse:Participation inthe Making and Interpretationof Constitutions."Professor Brest's wife,Iris, is an attorney withStanford's Office of theUniversity Counsel. •Gilson Promotedto ProfessorBusiness law scholarRonald J. Gilson, amember of the facultysince 1979, was grantedtenure this spring by theStanford UniversityBoard of Trustees.Professor Gilson's .chief research interest ISbusiness law and planning,with particular"emphasis, h~ s~ys, onbringing the Ins~ghts ofeconomic and financetheory to bear on th~problems of structuringtransactions and organizationsthat make up alarge part of 8: bU~inesslawyer's practice.GilsonGilson has written extensivelyabout con-.straints on managerialbehavior in tender offersand corporate take-overbattles. His most rec~ntpublication, writte~ ~IthYale Professor RelnlerKraakman, is "TheMechanisms of MarketEfficiency," whichappears as WorkingPaper No. 11 in the .Stanford Law and E~onomicsProgram series.(continued)Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer49

GILSON (cant.)Gilson is currently preparinga book concerningthe law and financialeconomics of corporateacquisitions, for FoundationPress.A native of Chicago,Gilson attendedWashington University(AB '68) and Yale LawSchool ('71), where heserved as note and commenteditor of the YaleLaw Journal. He thenclerked for Chief JudgeDavid L. Bazelon of theU.S. Court of Appeals(D.C. Circuit).Previous to joining theStanford faculty in 1979,he was a partner in theSan Francisco firm ofSteinhart, Goldberg,Feigenbaum & Lader.Professor Gilson regularlyteaches courses inBusiness Planning, Corporations,and CorporateAcquisitions.•Rehnquist PresidesOver Moot Court CompetitionCarney and Landsverk (left) v. Weinberg and Matteson (right)Supreme Court JusticeWilliam H. Rehnquist, a1952 graduate of theSchool, presided overthe final round of the31 st annual Marion RiceKirkwood Moot CourtCompetition, on May 6.He was joined on thebench by Judge ArthurL. Alarcon of the U.S.Court of Appeals for theNinth Circuit, and byJudge Zita L. Weinshienkof the U.S. DistrictCourt of Colorado.The arguments of thetwo teams were "excellent,"Rehnquist said,and "well above the medianof what we regularlyhear in the [U.S.Supreme] Court."This year's Kirkwoodproblem involved thefederal Immigration andNaturalization Service'spractice of "sweeping"factories in search ofillegal aliens, an issuethe Supreme Court recentlydecided to consider.Rehnquist saidthat the case developedby the Stanford MootCourt Board "combineda significant constitutionalissue which hasmainstream implicationsin constitutional law,together with the complexquestion of classcertification. "The students wereoften interrupted withpointed questions fromthe jurists. "I think everybodywas nervous," saidcompetitor Howard N.Weinberg, "but it wasless threatening than weanticipated." Weinberg,a second-year student,received the Walter J.Cummings Award asAlums Join Trot to ZottsMore than 160 students and alumni/ae from the Lawand Business schools ran a 5.7-mile course fromCrothers Hall up to "Zotts" (now the Alpine Inn) inthe Tenth Annual Turkey Trot to Zotts, held April 15.Trot Master David Buechler ('83), who set therecord for the race in 1981 with a 30:03 time, summonedthe runners to their marks, after Dan Reicher('83) played "Call to the Races," (the traditionalopening to the Kentucky Derby) on the saxophone.The first law student to cross the finish line wasTom Waldo ('85), who placed third, clocking 32:02.Kat Taylor ('85) was the first woman, with a record36:20 time.The event originated in 1974, when Patrick Seaver(JD/MBA '77) got a group of students together to runas a lark. "It was in the pre-jogging days," he recalls."The emphasis was clearly on the party atZotts. The first Trot to Zotts really was a trot. Five ranand nineteen walked." While the event has becomemore athletic, its loyal founder returns every year.Still unchanged is the celebration at Zott's which,according to another former trot master (Peter Stern,'81), was "just as enthusiastic as ever."•50 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

est oral advocate. Heand teammate DuncanL. Matteson also won theKirkwood Award as bestteam.The opposing team ofEva Marie Carney andLisa L. Landsverk receiveda CummingsAward for best brief.Carney, who graduatedin June, is now clerkingwith Judge Robert Staniforthof the CaliforniaCourt of Appeals, FourthDistrict (San Diego).Landsverk, another Junegraduate, is a newassociate with Piper &Marbury, in Washington,D.C.The 1982/83 MootCourt Board was headedby Michael J. Gennacoof the Class of 1983.Gennaco is now clerkingfor Judge Thomas Tangof the U.S. Court ofAppeals, Ninth District. •Steyer '83 WinsUniversityTeaching Award"I love teaching. I mightnot become a professor,but I'll always teach,"says 1983 graduate JimSteyer, who received theUniversity's highestteaching recognition, theWalter Gores Award(teaching assistantcategory) at Commencementexercises on June12.While at the LawSchool, Steyer was ateaching assistantalmost every semester inthe Political Science Department,where he hadreceived his undergraduatedegree. He particularlyremembers workingwith former presidentialcandidate John Andersonand Law ProfessorLawrence Friedman.Steyer also designedI and taught for threeyears a SWOPSI courseI examining men's roles.Last May, Steyer re-I ceived a Dean's ServiceAward for his work onthe Rape Education Pro­I ject -another form ofteaching, he feels.I Steyer was commendedfor his "unique impact,I energy, organization andIeducational contributionsto the campus and thecommunity."He is also a founder ofI the East Palo Alto CommunityLaw Project."One way to see theProject," says Steyer, "isas a forum for teaching.Students help educateclients about their rightsin the process of solvingtheir legal problems. Atthe same time facultytrain the students in clinicalprocedures."Steyer is now clerkingfor Justice Allen Broussardof the CaliforniaSteyerState Supreme Court, aswell as serving on theboard of directors of theCommunity Law Project..MerrymanHonored byFrench SavantsProfessor John HenryMerryman has beenawarded a Docteur (honoriscausa) degree bythe University of Aix­Marseilles, in France.The doctoral stole - redand yellow satin withermine trim - was bestowedby UniversityPresident Louis Favoreuon December 5, in a colorfulceremony at theAix-en-Provencecampus.I"The award," Merrymansaid on his return,"was based on my workin comparative law andin law and the visual arts(in which there is aspecial interest at Aix),as well as the happychance that PresidentFavoreu, an eminentlegal scholar, greatlyadmires Stanford andwants to establish firmrelations between ourtwo universities." Merrymanis the first Americanlegal scholar to receivean honorary doctorate atAix-en-Provence, nowpart of Aix-Marseilles,whose faculty of law isone of the oldest andmost respected inFrance.Professor Rene David,the unofficial doyen ofcomparative lawyersthroughout the world,participated in the cer~mony.Now an emeritusprofessor of the Universityof Paris, he deliv-ered the address presentingMerryman to theassembled dignitaries."That made it perfect,"Merryman says, "like beingpresented for anhonorary degree in economicsby Ken Arrow."Merryman has alsobeen honored by theItalian government,which in 1970 made hima "Cavaliere Ufficiale" ofits Order of Merit.A member of the Stanfordlaw faculty since1952, Merryman holdsthe endowed NelsonBowman Sweitzer andMarie B. Sweitzer Professorship.His manypublications include TheCivil Law Tradition(1969), Law, Ethics andthe Visual Arts (withAlbert Elsen, 1979), andMerrymanLaw in Radically DifferentCultures (with JohnBarton, James LowellGibbs, Jr., and Victor Li,1983). •Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer51

BabcockAwarded anHonorary LL.D.by San DiegoProfessor Barbara Babcockreceived a Doctorof Laws (honoris causa)degree from the Universityof San Diego onMay 22.The degree was con~ferred by USD PresidentArthur E. Hughes duringthe university's lawschool commencementceremonies, where Babcockwas the featuredspeaker.BabcockShe was praised, inthe citation, as a "brilliantscholar, accomplishedlawyer, dedicatedpublic servant,role model for women,and major contributor toour collective nationalsense of justice andequal opportunity."The previous month,on April 5, Babcock presentedan endowed annuallecture at the Cleveland-MarshallCollege forLaw.In her lecture, sheaddressed the difficultquestion, "How can youdefend someone who isguilty?""I tried," she later explained,"to bringtogether my experienceas a public defenderwith the opportunity I'vehad in four years ofteaching criminal procedureto reflect on thisissue."I'm as interested inworking out the answersfor myself as for mylisteners," she added.The text of her lecturewill be published in theCleveland-Marshall lawreview.Babcock joined theStanford Law faculty in1972, after nine years asa defense attorney inWashington, D.C., firstwith Edward Bennett Williams,and then with theLegal Aid Agency of theDistrict (subsequently renamedthe Public DefenderService), whichshe directed from 1968to 1972.In 1977 she returnedto Washington, whereshe served for two yearswith the U.S. JusticeDepartment as assistantattorney general, incharge of the civil division.Professor Babcockteaches introductory andadvanced courses in criminallaw, as well as thefirst-year Civil Procedurecourse. She wasawarded the John BinghamHurlbut Award forExcellence in Teachingby the graduating Classof 1981.•Reagan Names McBride to CrimeCommissionAssociate Dean Thomas F. McBride has beentapped by President R.eagan ~o serve on the newCommission on Organized Crime. , ,The executive order establishing the commiSSionwas signed by the President July 28 in a Rose Gardenceremony attended by McBride and othermembers of the 20-member group,The purpose of the commission, Re,agan said, isto "break apart and cripple the organized syndicatesthat for too long have been tolerated inAmerica."Judge Irving R. Kaufman of the U.S. Court. of .Appeals (2d Circuit) will head the group, which wll~fiold public hearings across the country and submita report on March 1, 1986."We've been given a broad mandat~ by the President,"Judge Kaufman said, "and we Intend to exerciseit."Commission members include former SupremeCourt Justice Potter Stewart and the Chairmen ofboth the Senate and House judiciary committees ­Senator Strom Thurmond and Representative PeterRodino, Jr.McBrideMcBride, who came to the School last Oc~ober asAssociate Dean for Administration, had previouslyheld a variety of oversight positions with the federalgovernment, most recently as Inspector General ofthe Department of Labor. ,(An article by McBride on co~puter us~ In detectingfraud and waste appeared In the prevIous StanfordLawyer issue.)•52Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Student Exposure to Career'Alternatives' - Dean Ely's MemoDean Ely discussed issues concerning careerchoices in the following memorandum to StanfordLaw students, distributed on January 25. The memorefuted suggestions by some students that theSchool channels them into corporate law, and describedcontinuing and new resources available tothose wishing to explore career alternatives. At thesame time, the Dean challenged the assumption thata career in corporate law necessarily precludespublic service activities. Because of the considerableinterest in these issues expressed bygraduates and friends of the School, the editorreprints the Dean's memo in full below.The world of our professionis large. Its practitionersand its roles areremarkably diverse, asare the rewards it offersnotsimply in financialterms but also in excitement,intellectual fascination,and the satisfactionthat can flow from publicservice or the helping ofothers. A number of youhave suggested to me,however, that the Schoolis doing too little to acquaintits students with this range of rewards, thatinstead our curriculum and financial aid policies aregeared so as to channel you all into large corporatelaw firms.To be honest, I think there is a good deal ofrationalization involved in these charges, that thewidespread choice of corporate law practice on thepart of our students is simply reflective of a combinationof interest in the sort of problems that oneencounters in such a practice, and concern forfinancial security for oneself and one's family whichis particularly understandable in these uncertaineconomic times. I don't think rationalization is all thatis involved, however, and it is because I do not thatI am taking the modest steps outlined in this memorandum.The administration of this School has no desire tosteer Stanford students in any particular career direction,and in particular no desire to steer themaway from practice in large corporate law firms.Such practices can offer a high excitement that maybe unavailable elsewhere, and, like every other formof legal endeavor, a corporate practice can providean attorney with opportunities to help 'make theworld a more habitable place for us all. (Like everyother kind of legal job, it can be performed eithermorally or immorally, depending on who is performingit.) Nor need a career in a corporate law firm entailan entirely uniform practice: Our profession isfilled with examples of men and women whose basicallylarge firm practices have involved significantactivity, intermittent or continuing, devoted quite explicitlyto serving the profession and the public.What we seek, instead, is increased exposure forour students, or rather increased opportunities forexposure, to various lawyers' activities occurring outsidethe standard large corporate practice. Somefew of you, thus exposed, may end up deciding thata "different" sort of career is what you wish at leastinitially to pursue. A greater number will probablyuse the breadth of experience thus gained to enrichand enliven what willnonetheless remain primarilya large firm practice.Beyond that, exposure to something of therange of lives and activitiesour profession offerswill simply make you abetter educated law studentand lawyer, providingyou with tools to enrichour various discussionshere at the School and thecontributions you will beable to make later in life asa practitioner, of whatever kind, and as a citizenlawyerconcerned (in the voting booth or elsewhere)with the enlightened formulation of public policy.1. One thing I and other members of the administrationhave done so far is to meet with students todiscuss this subject. Many of you have expressedsurprise at the number of students who came tothese meetings. What we said there may have beenof some help, but more important, I think, was thesymbolism, the fact that students contemplatingcareers other than entirely in large corporate lawfirms, or at least wishing the School provided moreexposure to such "alternatives," actually saw (a) theDean of the School indicating that their aspirationsand curiosities were not in his opinion evidence ofmental illness, and, perhaps more importantly (b) aroom full of fellow students who seemed to beentertaining the same "deviant" curiosities that theywere. I am told that those meetings may in somesmall way have helped set the student body talking,talking in particular in a way that recognizes that unlikemost people on this earth, you really do havemany choices about how you will spend the rest ofyour lives.(continued)Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer53

CAREER 'ALTERNATIVES' (cant.)2. A suggestion made at those meetings was thatthe faculty somehow idealizes for the students thelife of the large-firm corporate lawyer. If you thinkabout it you will soon recognize that that claim is atleast exaggerated, given that those of us on thefaculty obviously have chosen a different life. Well,then, students sometimes continue, the faculty is insufficientlyopen about its own moral values, and byits silence implicitly endorses the common corporatelaw career path as the only one worth considering.Actually, most of us do think it's a path worth considering,given that most graduates of Stanford andother law schools follow it and most, though not all,report satisfaction with their choice. But the only oneworth thinking about? Certainly we don't think that,and I suspect that what must be happening is thatas teachers we are very skittish about even suggestinghow we think you should spend your lives. Weare not spiritual advisers or preachers, and I certainlyhave no inclination to suggest to the faculty thatthat is what they should become.It is the case, however, that in addition to theacademic life which we now share, a large numberof the members of our faculty and staff have bothpast professional and present advisory affiliationswith various sorts of government agencies and other"public interest"-type organizations. (Some alsohave backgrounds in business law, of course; manyhave the sort of "mixed" background that often getsoverlooked in discussions like this but may in fact bethe most satisfying of all.) I think you will find ushappy to discuss our experiences - not all of whichhave been unequivocably favorable (or we wouldn'tbe here) - should you come to us with questions.To this end, I am attaching to this memorandum alist prepared and distributed by our PlacementOffice last month, entitled "Stanford Law SchoolFaculty/Staff Public Interest/Public Service Background."[Interested readers may obtain a copy ofthis list from the Placement Office, (415) 497-3925.]Again, no one is trying to steer you anywhere, butdo be aware that there are resources here to helpacquaint you with the range of alternatives.3. Students sometimes assert that during their firstterm courses, the discussions are conducted andthe hypothetical cases are set so as to assume acorporate law firm environment. As I think aboutsubjects taught in the first term, I have some troubleimagining how this can be so. In any event, I am bythis memorandum requesting the Curriculum Committeeto consider working into the first week of thefirst term - the Introduction to Law and Legal Institutionsprogram - instruction on the wide rangeof careers and activities that are open to those withlegal training. Again, we are not trying to steer anybody,but rather to be neutral, in this case to ac-quaint our students at the outset with the fact thatindeed there is legal life beyond the corporate lawfirm, and that life in such firms can itself be craftedso as to incorporate a rich and satisfying mix.4. Finally, and perhaps most tangibly, I am instituting- out of the Richard E. Lang Dean's DiscretionaryAccount and with the earmarked assistanceof other interested donors - a three-year experimentalloan program, whereby up to ten studentsper summer working in law-related jobs for governmentagencies or tax-exempt non-profit organizationswill be able to borrow up to $3500 ($2000for summer living expenses and $1500 to satisfy thestudent's expected contribution to school year expensesfrom summer earnings). Interest will be at 9percent, which we anticipate will be near the marketinterest rate when the money is lent. It will beginaccruing immediately, but the first payment will notbe due until six months after graduation. For the firsttwo years after graduation, only interest will be due.In the third, fourth, and fifth years after graduation,the borrowers shall pay one-third of the outstandingprincipal as well as accrued interest. (It should beclear that we are not hereby providing a financial incentivefor summer employment in a non-large-firmsetting. One whose principal considerations regardingsummer employment are financial would bequite ill-advised to take advantage of this program.The point instead is to help remove an existing disincentive,growing out of the need to put oneselfthrough school, to students' using one of their twosummers as a way of gaining exposure to some"alternative" form of law practice.)Obviously such a loan will have the effect of placingthe student involved, perhaps already significantlyin debt, into further debt. That is why seriousrepayment obligations are not incurred until threeyears after graduation, at which point most graduateswill be quite gainfully employed. To remove thepossible disincentive to the post-graduate acceptanceof low-paying, "alternative" employment whichthe program might, paradoxically, create, we haveincorporated the provision that the principal paymentsshall be forgiven if, at the time any principalpayment is due - that is, in the third, fourth, or fifthyear after graduation - the student is earning lessthan $27,500 (as adjusted for changes in the consumerprice index). To be eligible for loan forgiveness,the former student must be working full time ina law-related job. (Again, the financial inducementshere are plainly too small to draw anyone into"alternative" work because of the money. That is notour intention. Instead, by this forgiveness provisionwe have tried to remove the possibility that the student,by borrowing money in order to sample somethingdifferent during one of his or her summers, willhave created an additional financial disincentive tofurther pursuit of such "alternative" work.)54Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Class of 1983ReceivesDiplomas andHonorsDiplomas were presentedto 158 membersof the Class of 1983 inan awards ceremonyheld June 12 in KresgeAuditorium.John Hart Ely, dean ofthe Law School, welcomedthe School's 90thgraduating class andover 650 of their relativesand friends.Class PresidentStephane Atencio presentedthe 1983 JohnBingham Hurlbut awardfor excellence in teachingto Professor PaulGoldstein (see interviewon next page).Many members of thegraduating class wererecognized for outstandingachievements duringthei r th ree years at theLaw School.Bernard A. Burk wasnamed the NathanAbbott Scholar, for thehighest cumulativegrade-point average inthe class. The Urban A.Sontheimer prize forsecond highest averagewent to Michael J. Klarman.Sixteen members ofthe class were elected tothe Order of the Coif:Bernard A. Burk, DavidL. Furth, Samuel M. Hurwitz,William G. Roche,Michael J. Klarman, KirkM. Veis, Cynthia McGawMoore, Mark B. Seidenfeld,Dana L. Gross,David J. Shaffer, VincentM. Waldman, John D.Guinasso, Robert B.Hawk, John S. Gordon,CAREER 'ALTERNATIVES' (cant.)I am appointing as a Committee to administer theloan program Deans McBride and Smith, secondyearstudents Sharon Gwatkin and Michael Zigler,with Professor Mnookin as chair. The last three personsnamed were instrumental in designing the loanprogram, as was second-year student CatherinePagano, who has escaped Committee duties by takingan Externship this spring. Further details on theprogram are available from members of the Committee.During the summer of 1983, eleven students tookadvantage of the new loan program to obtain experiencein public service and/or government settings:Tracey Altman (1 st year student), office of theDistrict Attorney, New York County,' Xavier Becerra(2d) and Steven Goldfarb (1 st), Mexican AmericanLegal Defense and Educational Fund, San Francisco,'Patricia Chang (1 st), Office of the Public Defender,San Francisco,' Doran Goldman (1 st), DistrictAttorney, Manhattan,' Kirby Heller (1 st) and SaraLipscomb (2d), Public Advocates, Inc., San Francisco,'Ellen Kessler (1 st), Department of the AttorneyGeneral, Boston,' Laura Loeb (2d), Alaska Legal ServicesCorporation,' Carole Cooke (1 st), U.S. Departmentof Justice, Sacramento,' and Sandy Ortiz (2d),National Center for Immigrants' Rights, Los Angeles.•Thomas M. Hagler, andRobert A. Olson.The Frank BakerBelcher award for thebest academic work inevidence was won byDavid I. Schiller.Margaret A. Niles receivedthe Carl MasonFranklin Prize for the outstandingpaper in internationallaw.Eva Marie Carney andMichael J. Gennaco receivedthe 1983 FaerieMallory Engle Prize,awarded to the finalistsof the School's ClientCounseling Competition.The 1983 Olaus andAdolph Murie award forthe most thoughtful wriJtenwork in environmen'­tal law went to Palma J.Strand. The 1982 awardhad also been won by amember of the class,J. Christopher Grace.Stanford Law Reviewawards went to SharonL. Reich for outstandingeditorial contributions,Margaret A. Niles forbest student note, andDan Gunther '83 with Katherine Rose '07Cynthia M. Moore foroutstanding service tothe Review.The R. Hunter SummersTrial PracticeAward, given by officersof Serjeants at Law forstudent performances intrials conducted duringthe year, went to RobertM. Bohl, Joseph E.Bringman, John S. Gordon,James A. Henderson,Samuel M. Hurwitz,Dennis P. McLaughlinand Gail MacQuesten.The Nathan BurkanMemorial Competitionprize, law school division,was awarded toHenry V. Barry for thebest paper on copyrightlaw.A string quartet playedwhile graduates andtheir families celebratedat a reception held inCrocker Garden followingthe ceremony.[Readers may enjoythe photographs of thefestivities featured in theAnnual Report section ofthis issue. - Ed.] •Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 55

Hurlbut WinnerTalks AboutTeachingProfessor Paul GOldsteinthe first two-time winner'of the John BinghamHurlbut Award for Excellencein Teaching,described his classroomapproach in a recent interview."My aim in preparinga class," he explained,"is to identify the one ortwo central, most problematicissues in thearea being covered andthen to devise a seriesof questions for pursuingthese issues."Although I don't usethe classic case methodtechnique," he continued,"questions doplaya very large part inmy classes."I like to begin by exploringthe rule embodiedin a case or statuteand then engage thestudents in an appraisalof the rule's desirability- as measured bytheory, by consistencywith doctrine, and by therule's implications, if any,for the ways in whichfirms and individualsstructure their behavior."I calion students," headded, "rather than relyexclusively on volunteers.I find that it's auseful technique forkeeping the entire classinvolved and for givingme a sense of each student'sstrengths.". Goldstein is an expertIn real property and intellectualproperty law.His third casebook inthese areas will be publishedin the spring.Has his teaching stylechanged over the years?"The emphasis hasshifted," he replied. "Ihave in the past fewyears been focusingmore on the real-worldeffects of legal rules ­on the discrepancies be-Goldsteintween legal rules andhow people actually behave."This emphasis stemsin part from Goldstein'sexperience in law practiceduring two semesterleaves of absence, mostrecently at Morrison &Foerster in San Francisco.He is also frequentlyretai ned as a consuItanton copyright and relatedintellectual propertymatters. (An article byGoldstein on the right ofpublicity appeared in theprevious issue of StanfordLawyer.)Goldstein and his wifeJan Thompson (an arthistorian on the Universityof Santa Clara faculty),have a 9-month-olddaughter.•Law Review Names 1983/84 StaffStu~ents serving on the staff of the 1983/84, LawReView mustered last spring for a group photo. Picturedare: (back ~ow, (eft to right) Tony Richardson,Geoff Berman, Mike Zigler, Bob Lewis, Bob Woll,and Charles Van Cott; (middle row) Harsha Murthy~hris Painter, Glenn Lazar, and Paul Cassell (Pre- 'sldent); ~nd (front row) Dave Evans, Palma Strand,and Marilyn Drees. Not shown are Michael PowlenJohn Faulkner, and Mike Walch.''New Alumni/aeDirectory IsPlannedPreparations are now underway for publicationof a new directory of allStanford Law graduatesand other former studentsof the School.. Th~ directory will provide,In a single volume,an alphabetical listing ofnames and addressesalong with listings by ,class year and bygeographic location.The previous StanfordLa~ alumni/ae directory,which appeared in 1973is now ten years old. Th~new edition, scheduledfor 1984, will include allclasses through 1983.Brief questionnaires toconfirm and update in-formation will be in themail to each alumnus/asoon, along with a formfor ordering the volume~t a special prepublicationrate.Ouestions about theproject, which is plannedon a break-even basiscan be answered by ElizabethLucchesi, Directorof Alumni/ae Relations,at (415) 497-2730.•56 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Students Create Musical SpoofSecond-year students presented a hilarious spoofApril 24 on imagined differences between studentsassigned to the Curriculum B (alternative) vs. thosein the Curriculum A (traditional) first-year programs."Granola" and "Chester," played by SharonGwatkin and Eric Fingerhut, were the star-crossedlovers in West Coast Story - an irreverent take-offon the 1957 Broadway hit by Stephen Sondheim andLeonard Bernstein (who in turn owed much toShakespeare).The student version, subtitled as "A True Drama ofStanford Law School," climaxed with a no-verbalholds-barredmoot court competition (in lieu of arumble) between the two factions.Bill Skrzyniarz headed the team of seven writer/lyricists responsible for such memorable lines (sungto the "Jet Song") as:When you're an A, you are proud that it shows,You got three hours sleep, but your highlighterglows.When you're an A, you're an A to the max.You're in three study groups,' ·you can't wait totake tax . ..Marcela Davison-Aviles directed the play, withGreg Karasik as producer.The cast of 26 included several faculty members,namely Deborah Rhode (as herself), Jack ("Doc")Friedenthal, John ("Officer") Kaplan, Nancy ("Psychokiller")Millich, and Associate Dean Tom("Judge") McBride.•Ethics Discussed by Van de Kampand Faculty PanelCalifornia Attorney General John Van de Kamp (a1959 Stanford Law graduate) joined a School panelMay 2 for a discussion of "Professional Ethics andthe Criminal Justice System."The panel, which was organized by DeborahRhode, associate professor of law, also includedDean Ely and Professor Barbara Babcock.Rhode selected a hypothetical rape case in whichthe defendant appears to be, if not guilty, at least aninventive spinner of alibis. The case raised ethicalquestions for both the defense lawyer and the prosecutingattorney.Public discussion of such issues is important, Vande Kamp said, observing that "the criminal justicesystem, as we know it, is an adversary process, nota search for truth .... Indeed, it is a very complicatedkind of chess game, and very hard for thepublic to understand."An article based on the panel will soon appear inThe Stanford Magazine.•Members of the company after a special performance May 6 forthe Board of Visitors: (front row, left to right) MarcelaDavison-Aviles, Shelley Wall, Janice Weiner, all '84,' (middle) KatTaylor, '85,' (back) Sharon Gwatkin, Eric Fingerhut, and BillSkrzyniarz, also '84.P.S.Margaret Niles ('83) andfellow members of theAmerican debate teamthat toured Russia lastyear (Stanford Lawyer,Winter 1982/83, p. 27)have been debriefed bynone other than Secretaryof State GeorgeSchultz.The meeting, whichtook place April 6 inWashington, D.C., wasrequested by Shultz aftera report on the team'strip appeared on publictelevision."Meeting with theSecretary was an honorfor us," Niles says, "butmore important, it wasan indication of the levelof his concern about US­Soviet relations."Niles, who won theSchool's 1983 IrvingHellman, Jr., SpecialAward (for the outstandingstudent note publishedin the StanfordLaw Review), is nowclerking for Judge EugeneA. Wright of theU.S. Court of Appeals,9th Circuit, in Seattle. •Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer57

Schod;NI Grads Scatter toCities AllOverthe NationStanford law studentsgraduating this yearheaded for jobs andclerkships throughoutthe United States.The majority - 56percent of those reporting- left California, forpositions in the East (22percent), Southwest (13percent), and Far West(13 percent excludingCalifornia). Another 2percent are in foreigncountries.California, however,still claims a very largeminority of 44 percent."Our students tend tochoose major metropolitancenters," observedGloria Pyszka, director ofplacement. "I wish Icould say that more aremoving to mid-sizedcommunities, becausethat would please somealumni from those areaswho want to hire. But thebig cities still offer thewidest choice of lifestyles for young professionals."Starting salaries forthe Class of 1983 areexpected to equal or exceedthat of last year'sgraduates, which rangedfrom $22,000 to $46,000,reflecting rapid growth inthe past few years. "NewYork City will probablyhit $50,000 this year,"Pyszka notes, "but manyemployers across thenation are talking aboutholding the line or movingup cautiously. We'llsee."The number of newand recent graduatesselected for judicialclerkships reached 33this year, including 29with federal, 3 with state,and 1 with loca~ courts.Two 1982 graduates ­Anna Durand and GlenNager (see "ClassNotes" section) - willbe clerking for SupremeCourt justices.The initial job choicefor approximately 85percent of recent graduates(counting judicialclerks who then sign upwith law firms) continuesto be the private practiceof law. Ten percentchoose alternativesranging from publicsector/public interestpositions to corporations,while 5 percent choosenon-law options.The School's PlacementOffice, which Pyszkahas directed since1977, is recognized asone of the most effectivein the country. •58Harold G. King '28 Honoredin Cowell Foundation GiftHarold G. King (AB '27, JD '28) has been doublyhonored in the naming of the School's moot courtroom and of a new financial aid fund, establishedthrough a gift from the S. H. Cowell Foundation.The dedication of the new Harold G. King MootCourt Room, held June 15, was attended by eightmembers of the King family, including Harold andhis wife, Frederica (pictured), Cowell FoundationPresident Max Thelen, Jr., Law School Dean JohnEly, and several other Foundation and Universityofficers.The gift, Dean Ely said, "will assist us in ourattempt to ensure that financial need will not placeStanford beyond the reach of an otherwise qualifiedstudent. We are very grateful."King, who lives in Kentfield, California, is a formervice-president of the Foundation. Now retired, hewas for 33 years with Wells Fargo Bank, where hebecame vice-president and senior trust officer. •Mr. and Mrs. KingStanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Faculty NotesProfessor John H. Barton,Sweitzer ProfessorJohn Henry Merryman,Anthropology ProfessorJames Lowell Gibbs,Jr., and former ConsultingProfessor Victor HaoLi (now president of theEast-West Center inHonolulu) are surprisedand delighted that theirnew casebook, Law inRadically Different Cultures,is being used inChina. The book developedout of their pioneeringLaw Schoolcourse of the samename.Professor Mario Cappellettijourneyed to Bogotain April to deliver keynotelectures for threesessions of an internationalconference oflawyers, judges, and lawprofessors. While there,he was named an honoraryprofessor of theUniversidad Externadode Colombia. Cappellettiis currently based inFlorence, Italy, where heis serving as professorof law at the EuropeanUniversity Institute.Professor WilliamCohen helped plan andlead a workshop onteaching constitutionallaw sponsored by theAssociation of AmericanLaw Schools. The event,which was attended bynearly 100 con lawteachers, took placeJune 20-22 in LosAngeles. Three of thefourteen speakers werefrom Stanford. DeanJohn Ely and ProfessorCohen were speakers ona panel, moderated byCohen, which dealt withcourse coverage of individualrights and liberties.And Paul Brest, thenew Kenneth and HarleMontgomery Professor ofClinical Legal Education,participated in a paneldiscussion of "history,process, and other nondoctrinalalternatives."Professor Cohen alsomoderated a panel onwhether the concept ofequality under the EqualProtection Clause hadany intrinsic content.Professor Robert Ellicksontraveled to the OddFellows Hall in Millville,California, on January 8,to serve as featuredspeaker at the ShastaCounty Cattlemen'sAssociation annual meeting.This invitation resultedfrom Ellickson'sfieldwork last summer ondispute resolutionamong neighbors in therural county. Ellicksonand fellow professorThomas Grey (see below)participated in apanel discussion, February18, on "CurrentIssues in PropertyTheory," held in Los Angelesby the SouthernCalifornia Law Review.Mark A. Franklin, FrederickI. Richman Professorof Law, was oneof four organizers of aweek-long AALS conferenceon the Teachingof Torts, which tookplace June 6-10 in Boston.He also participatedas a panel member and/or chair in sessions onwhat the content of thebasic Torts courseshould be, and on advancedofferings in thefield.Lawrence Friedman,Marion Rice KirkwoodProfessor of Law, gave atalk on "The State ofAmerican Legal History"at the annual meetinglast December of theAmerican HistoricalAssociation, in Washington,DC. He also spoke,in February, at a conferenceon SouthernLegal History, in GulfPark, Mississippi. Andlater that month, he deliveredthe DonahueLecture at Suffolk UniversitySchool of Law, inBoston, on the subject ofthe changing Americanlegal culture.Professor William B.Gould is cochairman ofthe California state bar'sAd Hoc Legislative Committeeon the "Terminationat Will" Doctrine.The Committee, whichwas recently establishedby the bar's Labor andEmployment Section,will, in Gould's words,"write a report on thequestion of what legislation,if any, should beenacted in California todeal with so-calledwrongful dismissals."Professor Thomas Greyis one of six Stanfordfaculty members (andthe first lawyer) to beawarded a fellowship byFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer59

FACULTV NOTES (cant.) Professor Gunther was at Stanford. In Decem- be the first member ofthe Stanford Humanities recently honored in the ber, his article "Pigovian the Corporation to haveCenter. He will spend dedication of the 1982 Taxation with Administra- been a female under-1983/84 at the Center edition of the Supreme tive Costs" (coauthored graduate at Yale.exploring the role of nar- Court Review. The in- with Professor Stevenrative in case law. Last scription read: "To Shavell of Harvard Law Professor Michael S.October, Grey presented Gerald Gunther - For School) was published in Wald has been aptheMellon Lecture at the whom the Constitution is the Journal of Public pointed to the JuvenileUniversity of Pittsburgh a guide and not a tool." Economics. Justice Commission ofLaw School; an ex- Polinsky participated Santa Clara County. Anpanded version, entitled Professor J. Myron in two interesting events authority on family and"Langdell's Orthodoxy," Jacobstein participated this spring: a colloquium juvenile law, Wald haswill appear soon in the in a panel on law librar- in New Orleans, "Dam- helped draft legislationPittsburgh Law Review. ies for the Dean's Work- ages in Contract Law," dealing with child abuseProfessor Grey recent- shop at the American sponsored by the Law and neglect. The Comlyserved (as an outside Bar Association meeting and Economics Center mission is a citizenmember) on the Anthro- in February. That same of Emory University; and body, mandated by stapologyDepartment com- month, he journeyed to a CEPR workshop, "In- tute, which monitors themittee that recom- Costa Rica to attend a centives in Markets and performance of Countymended expulsion of seminar on human rights Organizations," held at agencies dealing with ju-China-researcher Steven research, sponsored by Stanford. veniles, reviewsMosher. "Regrettably - the Inter-American Insti- budgets, and providesbecause some evidence tute on Human Rights. Professor Robert Rabin advice and counsel tomight endanger innocent saw the second edition County authorities. Inparties - our report John Kaplan, Jackson of his book Perspectives addition, Professor Waldcould not be published," Eli Reynolds Professor of on Tort Law (Little, has been elected to thehe notes, "nor could the Law, was an honored Brown & Co.) published board of the Nationalgrounds for expulsion be guest on two campuses in February. He is now Committee for the Prerevealed."this winter: University of writing a new book, on vention of Child Abuse,Illinois, Champaign- the historical develop- and of the National Ju-Gerald Gunther, William Urbana, where he gave ment of the federal reg- venile Law Center. ThisNelson Cromwell Pro- the Baum Lecture (on ulatory system. Rabin past year, as a Gugfessorof Law, has pre- "Capital Punishment"); served as a panelist in genheim Fellow, he haspared an extensive dis- and Florida State Uni- January for a roundtable been working on a bookcussion paper for the versity, Tallahassee, for on torts, sponsored by on child abuse and ne-1983 Chief Justice Earl the Mason Ladd Lecture. the American Associa- glect.Warren Conference of Both universities plan to tion of Law Schools. And•the Roscoe Pound Amer- publish the lectures in in February, he preicanTrial Lawyers their respective law sented a paper - "Legi-Foundation. The annual reviews. timacy, Discretion, andConference, held this A book by Kaplan, the Concept of Rights"year in Charlottesville, The Hardest Drug - - at a Yale conferenceVirginia, is attended by Heroin and Public Policy, on the legacy of the Newan invited grou p of par- has just been published Deal. The paper willticipants from the bench, by the University of Chi- appear soon in the Yalebar, academia, govern- cago Press. (An article Law Journal.ment, and the media. drawn from the book be-Gunther's paper, "Con- gins on P. 4.) Professor Deborahgressional Power to Cur-Rhode is now a fellow oftail Federal Court Juris- A. Mitchell Polinsky·, the Yale Corporation, thediction: An Opinionated professor of law and governing body of YaleGuide to the Ongoing associate 'professor of University. She wasDebate," will be pub- economics, has been elected by alumni/ae tolished (together with the appointed to the steering the seat previously helddiscussion by Confer- committee of the new by Bayless Manningence participants) by the Center for Economic (former dean of StanfordFoundation. Policy Research (CEPR) Law School). Rhode will60 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

IITHRIFT INSTITUTIONScontinuedConclusionThis survey of the new financial servicesenvironment and some of itslegal ramifications has been bothbroad and general, as befits an attemptto get a sense of the decadeahead. I have no great confidence insome of the specific conclusions thathave been drawn, but I believe thatthe forces and questions examinedare ones that need to be kept inmind. --In principle, all of the legal problemsthat have been referred to canbe dealt with byappropriate changesin the statutes or regulations. That isnot to say that all of those changeswill in fact be made, or in a timelyfashion, because there are opposinginterest groups, and the politicalsystem has considerable inertia. Butlegal problems are not necessarilyintractable, and in fact the law offinancial regulation has been changingat a fairly rapid pace in the pastdecade.The economic and technologicalforces we have been discussing, onthe other hand, cannot be abolishedby an act of Congress, though thereare those who try. In the end, suchforces must be adapted to, in oneway or another. While the basicfunctions of financial intermediationwill continue to be performed, nothingguarantees the survival of a particulartype of financial intermediary.The public does not much careabout "level playing fields" or thelabel of the institution providingfinancial services; it cares muchmore about the cost, quality, andconvenience of the services.I am sure there are more responsesto the problems I have beendiscussing than the ones I have identified;our financial system is remarkablyadaptable and inventive.But I am also sure thatsurvival in theInew environment requires addressingthose problems and devising aplan to cope with them that is tailoredto the circumstances of a giveninstitution. I hope that the law willnot make that more difficult than itneed be, butmyadvice is: Don't bankon it..* * *This article-slightly revised from apaper presented by Professor Scott ata conference on December 9, 1982-isprinted with the permission ofFederalHome Loan Bank of San Francisco,sponsor ofthe conference. The originalpaper appears in Proceedings of theEighth Annual Conference: StrategicPlanning for Economic andTechnological Change in the FinancialServices Industry, published thisspring by Federal Home Loan Bank ofSan Francisco. Scott discussed thebackground and early implications ofthe 1980 bankingderegulation act in aprevious Stanford Lawyer article(Fall/Winter 1981).Professor Scott was recently named tothe new Ralph M Parsons Professorshipin Law and Business (see articlein School News section).HEROIN continuedof the heroin he receives from themaintenance system even while remainingaddicted.Law Enforcement andIllegal SalesUnfortunately, we cannot rely onthe threat of detection to prevent theaddict from selling some of hisheroin supply. Though the clinic canuse urine tests to monitor whetherhe uses methadone or street heroincut with various substances, it cannotdetermine whether he has usedall the heroin that has been prescribed-for him. As a result, urin-alysis would be a deterrent only tothe addict's selling all of his supply.And urinalysis is not foolproof, evenfor this purpose.Nor could the police do much. Theaddicts in heroin maintenance wouldbe far too numerous to watch; theywould be legally in possession oftheir heroin; and could easily maketheir sales in private.In fact, heroin trafficking throughdiversion from a prescriptionmaintenance system would be muchmore difficult for the police to containthan is our present illegal heroindistribution system. Often law enforcementis best able to disruptheroin distribution by intervening atthe higher end of the chain. This isquite difficult, but if the police domanage to seize a large shipment ofheroin, put a large ring out ofbusiness, or disrupt cultivation in aforeign country, there may be asizable- if temporary- contractionin the heroin supply.By contrast, where the addict sellsthe heroin prescribed for him, themaintenance system itself takes theplace of the illegal manufacturer, importer,large-scale wholesaler, andsmall-scale wholesaler. The hugenumber of extremely short supplychains- each consisting of an addictin maintenance and his customerswouldmake the illegal market virtuallyinvulnerable to law enforcement.The prescription heroin maintenancesystem may create a whollynew and very large class of regularsellers who will make heroin moreaccessible as well as cheaper. Evenamong the relatively noncriminalEnglish addicts, one study showedthat 11 percent regularly sold part oftheir heroin supply. In the UnitedStates, one would expect the figureto be far higher.We must be concerned with thepurchasers, as well as the sellers, ofprescribed heroin. Many of the customersfor illegally sold heroinwould be nonaddicts. This is the casetoday and there is no reason to thinkFall 1983 Stanford LaWyer 61

it will be less so if we adopt a heroinmaintenance system. Indeed, thereare reasons to think that more nonaddictswill be able to purchaseheroin under a prescription maintenancesystem.One reason would be the greatersocial integration of the new class ofsellers. Freeing addicts from theneed to pursue their own heroin requirementsmakes it easier for themto integrate themselves into moreareas of our society. Indeed, that isone of the purposes of heroin maintenance.The problem is that so manyaddicts have become more adept atillegal than legal methods of earningincome. The likely prospect is thatmany of them would supplementtheir incomes by selling some oftheir prescribed heroin to their new,nonusing associates.The effect of a prescription system,then, would be to expose amuch larger segment of the populationto access to heroin. It would notonly lower the financial cost of thedrug to large numbers of people, itwould greatly lower the nonfinancialcosts as well-the difficulty, inconvenience,and danger of obtainingheroin.Enrollment of NonaddictsNonaddicts might even be able toobtain heroin through the prescriptionsystem directly rather than indirectlyfrom those addicts inmaintenance. It has been allegedthat the almost automatic provisionof welfare payments to those enrolledin certain methadone programshas acted as a significantinducement to nonaddicted heroinusers, and even some nonusers, topass themselves off as addicts andenter maintenance.Similarly, the opportunity to profitfrom the sale of prescribed heroincan act as an incentive to both addictsand nonaddicts to enter themaintenance system. The incomefrom heroin sales would presumablybe considerably greater than thatfrom welfare payments today, andwould provide a more exciting and,in some circles, a more respectableway of earning a living.Unfortunately this income wouldbe gained at considerable social cost.It would increase the number ofheroin sellers, increase the costs ofthe maintenance system by addingextra clients, and be a far more explosiveissue politically than welfareis today.It is true that if a heroin maintenanceprogram were run with considerablecare, it could avoid takingmost nonaddicts onto its rolls. Thisis not, however, so easy as mightappear.Although we tend to use the term"addiction" as if it were a precise,either/or condition, the fact is that itis a very imprecise term. Often thequestion of addiction will turn out tobe one of degree - and even then dependentupon the expectations of theuser.Admittedly, injection of an opiateantagonist will throw into withdrawalsomeone with a relativelylow degree of physical dependence,while it will not affect a mere user.There are disadvantages in thissomewhat drastic screeningmethod, however. First of all it islikely to make signing up for themaintenance program considerablyless attractive to those who are addicted.More important, it requires aconsiderable degree of care and skillto administer - characteristics whichmay not always be in great supply ifheroin maintenance proliferates.Worse yet, our experience withmethadone programs gives us reasonto expect that patients and staffwill sometimes collude. Prospectivepatients counterfeit addiction forvarious reasons. The staff membersignore the safeguards meant to barnonaddicts, both because the supportfor such clinics is based on a perpatient payment and because theyare sympathetic with the reasons thenonaddict wants to join. This, as wewill see, has been a problem withmaintenance systems using methadone,a much less troublesome andless attractive drug than heroin. Wewould have to expect that considerablymore would go wrong with anysystem making use of heroin itself.Costs of a PrescriptionSystemA prescription heroin maintenancesystem would entail significant administrativecosts. First of all, onpurely therapeutic grounds, it wouldentail expenses for monitoring andprescribing for the addicts.In addition, we would need to establishcareful controls to preventthe wholesale embezzlement of heroin.We would have to invest a considerableamount in auditing thepractices of clinics to prevent prescriptionfraud and other corruption-though, of course, our effortscould never be completely successful.Similarly, the pharmacies thatfilled the prescriptions would have tobe protected from robbery as well asembezzlement.Finally, the social cost of a prescriptionmaintenance system includesnot only the resourcesexpended on it and the increases inaddiction it might bring, but also theresults of the inevitable police effortsto stem the tide of diversion. Thegreater these efforts, the more theoverall system takes on the disadvantagesof our present heroin prohibition,in the consumption of lawenforcement resources, fostering ofpolice corruption, and violations ofcivil liberties.On-the-Premises SystemThe intractable problem of diversionfrom a prescription maintenancesystem forces one to examinemore carefully the other major typeof heroin maintenance: the on-thepremisessystem. Here, diversionwould be minimized by not allowing62Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

the addict to possess heroin, exceptinside a secure clinic. If the addictwere required to shoot his heroin onthe premises, relatively little supervisionwould be needed to preventthe massive diversion entailed in aprescription system.The on-the-premises system, however,raises other difficulties, most ofwhich stem from the brute pharmacologicalfact that heroin is a shortactingdru'g. Since its effects last foronly about four to six hours, the addictin maintenance would be forcedto appear for his shot three or fourtimes a day. The interruptions requiredby such a schedule wouldmake a normal working life difficult,if not impossible, and the inconvenienceof so many trips to the clinicmight well make this kind of heroinmaintenance no more attractive tomost addicts than are their presentalternatives: abstinence, methadonemaintenance, or continuing life onthe street.Obviously, to make an on-thepremisesheroin maintenance systemwork, we would have to lowerthe addict's traveling time considerably.We would need far more clinicsto dispense heroin than presentlydispense methadone. There are severalserious costs in doing this,however.The Problem of DiversionNot only would the clinics, the centralheroin warehouses, and thevehicles delivering the drug fromone place to another all be targets forrobbery and theft, but the greaterthe number of clinics, the greater thesecurity problems of preventingdiversion by employees corruptedby the profits to be made in sellingheroin. Although diversion by addictsof their allotments could bemade very difficult by an on-thepremisessystem, the same cannotbe said concerning the employees ofthe system.Sale of heroin legitimately cominginto police possessio!! has been anagging problem of heroin enforcement;dealers arrested for sellingheroin have been given back thedrug supply seized from them andpermitted to continue their business-withpolicemen as senior partners.And we know even of caseswhere confiscated heroin has foundits way from guarded police propertyrooms onto the street.There is certainly no reason tothink that the profits of heroin dealingwould prove less tempting tothose working for the maintenancesystem; and the problems of designinga security system would be fargreater. The police, at least, are notexpected to distribute heroin at all.Once one allows distribution on anyscale, diversion becomes mucheasier. It becomes possible to keepnonexistent addicts on the rolls,diverting their allotment of heroin tothe illegal market, or to shortweighthe dosage addicts receive and sellthe difference. And, of course, "unexplained"inventory shrinkages canresult from simple, crude theft.It is no doubt possible to designmethods of combating each of theseproblems. The difficulty is that asthe number of clinics goes up, sodo-more than proportionally-thecosts of supervision, the likelihood ofcorruption somewhere in the system,and the difficulty of simplykeeping track of both heroin andaddicts.Attractiveness to AddictsAn on-the-premises system wouldbe much less attractive to the addictthan a prescription system. Hewould have to contend with all the inconvenienceof traveling and waitingaround for the inevitable bureaucraticprocedures within the clinic.He could not shoot up in his homesurroundings or, presumably, withhis friends, and it is hard to believethat the institutional setting of aheroin maintenance clinic would be apleasant, attractive place for him.Finally, the time and energy thattreatment in such a clinic requireswould prevent the addict from enjoyingmany of the exciting satisfactionsof his former life style.It is likely, therefore, that asubstantial percentage of addictswould not sign up for this kind ofheroin maintenance. To the extentthat the price of heroin remainedhigh, but more addicts remained onthe street, the situation wouldresemble our present heroin prohibition.The fact that some addictswould be attracted into the systemmight lower some of the social coststhey impose upon us - but only at theprice of adding other costs.Location of the ClinicsAny sizable increase in the numberof maintenance clinics would notonly be more expensive financially;it would cause major political problems.The location of methadoneclinics has caused considerable oppositionfrom the surrounding neighborhoods,and heroin clinics wouldbe likely to generate much strongerresentment. The amount of trafficper addict generated by a heroinclinic would be much greater becauseof the larger number of visitsnecessary, and the short time betweeninjections would tend to inducethose addicts who had nothingelse to do to congregate in the area,either nodding from their last shot orwaiting around for the next.This would raise community objectionson a host of grounds; manywould protest on the ground that thecongregation of addicts near theclinic might become a magnet to theyouth of the area or the focus for alocal drug culture. In addition, if pastexperience is any guide, the areaswhere the addicts gathered wouldsoon become prolific sources of bothpetty crime and unsightly litter.Moreover, the small area servedby each heroin clinic would make itimpossible to locate all outside of theresidential areas. Many would haveto be located within the ghetto ratherFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer63

than on its edges, thus increasing thepolitical opposition to the clinics andexacerbating their abrasions of thesurrounding community.These are not merely public relationsdifficulties. The opposition ofthe clinics' neighbors would mostlikely be based on a genuine loweringof the quality of their lives-andone which would be differentially imposedon those least able to afford it.The Problemof the AutomobileAs if this were not enough, wemust consider the problem of theautomobile. Although, in the mostcrowded inner cities, it is likely thatmost addicts do not drive cars, thereare many, perhaps a majority inplaces such as California, who do.The difficulty here is that many addictson heroin are not in goodenough condition to drive safely.Heroin, in this respect, is quiteunlike methadone, where the long- Ier-acting nature of the drug and thefact that it is taken orally make itsonset far more gentle.Even those addicts who are takingstable doses of heroin will not be ingood enough condition to drive justafter their injection, and should theybe delayed in traffic on the wayto theclinic, the beginnings of withdrawalmay make them a danger then. Entirelyapart from any legal liabilitythe clinic may incur, there is themoral problem of creating a risk tothose on the streets, and this dangerwill be most concentrated nearestthe clinic.The more one thinks about thisproblem, the more intractable it Ibecomes. We might be able to makean on-the-premises system workonly by providing convenient transportationfor addicts and by locatinglarge numbers of clinics throughoutour areas of heroin addiction. Thecosts of this kind of service, however,may simply price the wholeprogram out of the market.Financial Costof the On-the-PremisesSystemIndeed, the financial cost of theprogram would probably raise themost serious obstacle to an on-thepremisesheroin maintenance system.For a host of reasons, includingthe fact that it must be staffed dayand night, an on-the-premises heroinmaintenance system is considerablymore expensive than a prescriptionheroin scheme or one using methadone.It is likely that an on-thepremisesheroin maintenance systemwould cost some $15,000 per addictper year.Arguably this expenditure wouldstill be worthwhile, since the yearlysocial cost imposed by many addictsunder heroin prohibition is wellabove $15,000. The wisdom of suchexpenditures is by no means clear,however, for several reasons. Thoseaddicts who would stay in this kindof treatment would probably tend tobe the less criminal and more stableaddicts, who impose less than$15,000 a year costs upon us. Andsome of the criminalistic addicts whodid enter the maintenance programwould continue their former lifestyle with its attendant depredationsupon society, while absorbing thecost of maintenance, as well.In addition, the $15,000 figuredoes not include the indirect costs ofthe on-the-premises system. It doesnot include the social cost of theinevitable diversion from the system,the political and symbolic costsof locating the clinics, and thewelfare costs caused simply by thefact that for many, attending an onthe-premisessystem would be sotime-consuming that it preventedgainful employment. Finally, anykind of heroin maintenance system,regardless of whether a prescriptionor an on-the-premises system, involvescertain inherent costs whichmust be considered along with thosealready mentioned.The Costs of Any HeroinMaintenance SystemAmong the costs of all maintenanceschemes, we must consider the politicaldisadvantages of any government-controlledsystem which distributesaddictive drugs. We have \already heard charges that methadonemaintenance is a type ofgenocide and an effort to manipulatelarge numbers of minority groupmembers through government tranquilization.Even if one rejects thesecharges as extreme and unbalanced,there is legitimate cause for concern.Anyone interested in limiting governmentalpower over the individualshould worry about programs thatwould keep sizable numbers of citizensdependent upon the goodwill ofofficialdom to avoid being deprivedof their supply of an addicting drug.The Addict's HealthThe fact that the very nature of. heroin maintenance involves givingheroin to addicts raises anotherissue. In the long term, heroin use,especially through intravenous injection,is not good for the addict'shealth. British addicts, when theywere receiving legal heroin, had adeath rate even higher than that ofAmerican street addicts. So long asthey continue intravenous administration,addicts will risk collapsedveins, hepatitis, and a whole series ofphysical ailments. Moreover, eventhough heroin seems relatively nontoxic,at least as compared to alcohol,we do not yet know the longtermphysical effects of heroin addiction,even on a stabilized dosage andapart from the method of administration.The physical effects of heroin areby no means the only health problem.It is likely that many of thosemaintained on heroin will not be ableto stabilize their doses, despite theefforts of the maintenance clinics. As64 .Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Ia result, many addicts may be leftalternating between a heroin deficitand a heroin euphoria as their toleranceoutstrips and then fallsbehind the amount of the drug theyreceive-perhaps supplemented bystreet heroin.The duty of physicians to helptheir patients does not fit in well witha system of heroin maintenance thatis designed in great part to keepaddicts from imposing costs uponthe rest of us. At the very least, thetension between the physician's idealof helping his patient, his role aspoliceman, and the desires of the addictfor more heroin will result inserious staffing and administrativeproblems in any heroin maintenanceprogram run under our medicalmodel.Enrolling NonaddictsIn any kind of heroin maintenancesystem, discriminating between trueaddicts and non-addicted userswould be difficult. The tendencywould be to enroll non-addicts on theassumption (not true) that everyheroin user will become addicted.Why would non-addicts seek tojoin a heroin maintenance system?Some may prefer even an inconvenienton-the-premises system totheir present lives. Some may simplybecome addicted, knowing that theywill then be candidates for maintenance.Others may be able to talktheir way into the maintenance programwhile not yet addictedthoughof course addiction will soonfollow, at least in an on-the-premisesprogram.We know that membership in amethadone program has been consideredby welfare authorities insome areas as tantamount to an inabilityto work. It is likely that heroinmaintenance will also attract seekersof welfare payments. Indeed, thecombined lure of heroin and welfarepayments may be that much greater.Moreover, addicts maintained onheroin may in fact be less able toIengage in productive work thanthose maintained on methadone,and, if they have to come to an onthe-premisessystem three times aday, this may be true, independent ofany direct drug effect.Prolonging AddictionAnother cost of any heroin maintenancesystem is its effect on alternativemethods of grappling with theheroin problem. If the life of thejunkie were the only alternative tomaintenance on legal, cheap andpure heroin, we could probablyagree that those on heroin maintenancewould be better off. Thechoice, however, in many cases, willbe between heroin maintenance andno addiction at all.We know that many addicts giveup addiction after relatively shortperiods and before they have built uptoo great a habit. Usually they dothis because they fear the disastrousconsequences of continued addiction,because of the problem of locatingand affording a supply, andbecause the heroin scene is too muchof a "hassle" for them.Moreover, even among long-termaddicts, perhaps a majority "matureout" and give up addiction after theage of about thirty-five. If heroinmaintenance is attractive and easyenough to attract addicts into thetreatment, it is quite likely to attractthem to stay.This problem is not nearly so simpleas might appear. Discontinuingmaintenance, say to addicts overforty, would be fought by clinic staffson medical and humanitariangrounds. And a policy of graduallymaking it more inconvenient orotherwise discouraging older patientswould be even harder to implement.Even if we did terminatemaintenance for addicts of a givenage-or at the physician's discretion- the chances are that at leastsome of those terminated wouldbecome street addicts again. Indeed,the percentage who returned tostreetaddiction might be higher thanwe think. We do not know how muchof the burnout phenomenon iscaused by age and how much by theoverall toll of many years as a streetaddict. If the latter, the long-termmaintenance patient might have energyleft for several years of streetaddiction.Effect on Other Typesof MaintenanceThe likely attractiveness of heroinmaintenance for addicts will haveanother effect; it will undermine anyother kind of maintenance we mightuse. As we will see, despite the problemsinherent in methadone maintenance,large numbers of addictshave adjusted to that drug and seemto be leading productive, noncriminallives, at a cost per addictconsiderably less than that of anon-the-premises system and withoutproducing the massive diversion aheroin prescription system wouldentail.Although, as a therapeutic matter,they are better off on methadone, itseems quite clear that most addictswould prefer to be maintained onheroin instead. The institution ofheroin maintenance, whatever goodit would do for those who have refusedour present treatments, wouldbe very likely to lure away frommethadone even those who could, infact, adjust to that more convenientand therapeutic drug.It is likely that any clinic offeringa choice between methadone andheroin maintenance would find itsmethadone rolls undersubscribed.Nor could it insist, as a condition ofreceiving heroin, that addicts trymethadone first. The preliminaryperiod on methadone before switchingto heroin might so lessen the attractivenessof the entire programthat it would lose much of its appealto many street addicts. And unlessthe heroin maintenance schemewere extremely inconvenient, theaddict would have a considerable in-Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer65

Heroin maintenance is, in manyways, like euthanasia. It is perhaps agood idea if all the details can beworked out. Unfortunately in bothcases, it turns out that there aresticky problems that simply do notyield to the kind of line drawingwhich a legal-and social-systemsuch as ours must do.Does this mean that there isnothing we can do about our heroinproblems? The answer, it is hoped, isno. There may be no panacea, butsome things can be done, particularlyin our policies towards userswho are not otherwise involved incriminal activities.Although the cumulative effect ofthis and many other small improvementsmay eventually lower greatlythe cost of heroin in our society, itlooks very much as if no dramaticchange will rescue us from the probcentiveto fail during the trial periodon methadone so that he could thereafterreceive heroin.Cultural ControlsMost discussions of heroin maintenancefocus on the short-term effectsof freeing heroin addicts from thedemands of an illegal habit. Rarelydo we see any discussion of the longtermeffects of heroin maintenanceon the social control of heroin use.Yet this is a worrisome problem. Thepresent cultural constraints againstheroin addiction, and even againstany use of the drug, are probably amajor factor in keeping down thepresent number of addicts.The mere fact of large-scale legalsupply of the drug by the governmentand by the medical professionmight broadcast the message thatheroin is not that bad. This mightlessen the social disapproval ofheroin, which acts as a barrier tomany who might otherwise try thedrug. In addition, the fact that an addictcould be maintained on the verydrug that has caused his problemmight make addiction itself lessthreatening. This might weaken thefear of addiction, which not onlyprevents many from initially tryingthe drug but also acts to impel manyoccasional users to control theirintake.The final problem with heroinmaintenance is in fact a broader difficultywhich besets any maintenancesystem or indeed any attempted cureof heroin addicts. Our experiencewith methadone maintenance hastaught us that though stabilizationon an opiate is probably a necessarycondition of an addict's social productivityand personal well-being, itis by no means a sufficient condition.By the time they enter maintenance,addicts typically are unable to copewith anger, frustration, or anxietywithout turning to one drug oranother to ease those feelings. Oftenboth their friends and their valuesare deeply rooted in the addictculture. It is likely that they sufferfrom a woeful lack of job skills, andin many cases they seem unable todelay their gratification long enoughto gain any reward less immediatethan their drug use.If our major goals in maintainingaddicts on heroin are the reductionof their criminality and their restorationto productive life, we should beaware that not all of their criminalitymay be due to their addiction andthat most have never led what wewould call productive lives. The addicts'many problems apart fromtheir drug use are not, of course,automatically solved by maintenance.Though maintenance maypermit their amelioration, the existenceof these additional problems,which must also be solved before thefull benefit of maintenance can berealized, may reduce our enthusiasmfor any kind of maintenance system,and especially for the most expensiveand difficult variety- heroinmaintenance.Conclusionlem. Admittedly, the drug area is fullof surprises. (Who would have predictedseven years ago that cocainewould bring more money into the illegalmarket than heroin?) The importantthing is to do the best we can.After all, if the heroin problem werean easy one, we probably would havesolved it by now.•* * *This article is drawn from ProfessorKaplan's latest book, The HardestDrug: Heroin and Public Policy (Universityof Chicago, 1983). The extensivereferences of the original areherein omitted to save space.Professor Kaplan is a leading expert inthe field ofdrug control and author ofthe book Marijuana: The New Prohibition(1970). He earned both hisundergraduate and law degrees atHarvard (LLB '54), where he was amember of the law review. He thenclerkedfor U. S. Supreme CourtJusticeTom Clark, followed by study at theUniversity of Vienna in criminology.In 1957 he was a special attorney forthe U. S. Department of Justice, andfrom 1958 to 1961 he served as assistantU. S. attorney in the NorthernDistrict of California. A member ofthe Stanford Law faculty since 1965,he holds the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professorship.His principal Law Schoolcourses are Criminal Law, Evidence,and Criminal Procedure.66 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

PRISON LABOR continuedworking Californians on the outside?There are, I believe, at least twofloodcontrol work and prison construction- that the legislatureshould now move forward on. Bothkinds of work, while highly beneficialto the state's citizenry, would beprohibitively costly without prisonlabor. Restrictions on a third kind ofwork-manufacture of products forgovernmental agencies - should alsobe eased.Some observors have cautionedthat an expansion of prison laborprograms could eventually lead to a 'Soviet-style Gulag system of laborcamps. This is a legitimate concern,and it must be admitted that prisonlabor does entail some element ofcoercion. The difference, however,is that the Soviet system of prisonerexploitation is carried on in secrecyby a regime possessing unbridledadministrative discretion. Americanprisons, by contrast, are subjected toheavy and regular doses of outsidescrutiny from the press, the legislature,relatives of inmates, andacademics. Moreover, our prisonoperations are governed by detailedwritten rules emanating from allthree branches of government, withappeal rights built into each step ofthe incarceration process.But to those who feel that workprograms are detrimental to the prisonersor detract from the rehabilitativeprocess, I can only ask that theyconsider the alternative. Idleness ona scale encompassed in the currentCalifornia prison system presents afrightening spectre. An idle institutionis much more difficult to manageand secure than a productive one.The attitude and environment ofboth staffand inmate depends uponthe amount and nature of productivework being done. The alternative towork is a "lock down" of more andmore inmates in 40-square-foot cellsfor twenty or more hours a day- in-mates who have nothing but time ontheir hands.The eminent penologist, MaxGrunhut, said, "Throughout history,the rise and fall of prison systemscoincided with the changing conditionsof prison work." California'sprison system has been declining inquality for two decades, and the rateof decline escalates with each passingyear. Threatened by an expandinginmate population and a shrinkingpurse, our prison system is beingchallenged as never before.In order to meet that challenge, wemust change the character of Californiacorrections by making productivelabor the object, and notmerely the adjunct, of incarceration.To do otherwise is to accept the continuingdecline and escalating cost ofa prison system of which no one canbe proud.•Professor Sher, a member ofthe StanfordLaw faculty since 1957, is nowseving his second term in the CaliforniaState Assembly, where he chairsthe Committee on Criminal Law andPublic Safety.Credits:Photography: cover, John Sheretz;p. 2, Jane Reed; 10, Bank ofAmerica; 12, Sears; 19, Universityof Hawaii; 28-46, John Sheretz; 47(Schmidt), Artie Streiber, StanfordDaily; 47-9 (faculty photos),Stanford News and Publications; 50(moot court), John Sheretz; 50(Zotts) and 51 (Steyer), MicheleFoyer; 51 (Merryman), Henry Ely­Aix; 52 (both), 53, and 56 (both),Stanford News and Publications; 55and 57, John Sheretz; 58, InstructionalMedia, Stanford; 59,Stanford Law School; 69, StanfordUniversity Archives; and 90(Chicago), Kee Chang.Drawings: pp. 4-8, BarbaraMendelsohn; 22-27, Steve Rouett;57, Honore Daumier, "Scene from aMoliere Play," Glasgow Museumand Art Gallery; and 86 (map),Nancy Singer.Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer67

c~OTESII1912-25Hon. David Lee Rosenau, Jr.Court HouseAthens, AL 35611Old Stanford Law grads never die - theysimply fade away!Such apparently has been happening tothe various class correspondents from1912 to 1925. Also 1927 is without a correspondent.Therefore I have taken onthe job of correspondent for all thoseclasses. (The class of 1926 is wellmannedby myoid friend, Leon David('26), who as custodian and manager ofthe old Stanford Union was my "landlord"while I was one of his "tenants:' I enjoyLeon's news almost as much as hisclassmates do, for many of those hewrites about were my good friends also.)To feturn to the subject, I hope thatthis letter will awaken and rekindle interestamong those who were on the"Farm" in its best (?) days, while I wasthere. Just mail me your news, marriages,divorces, arrests, and anythingelse that you feel might interest yourclassmates, at the address above. (Notethat the zip code is 35611.)And NOW for the news from you:Moe M. Fogel (Pre-Legal '12)­507 Palisades Avenue, Santa Monica, CA90803-retired in 1981 from Fogel,McInerny, Dealy & McCall, so he spentmany years helping others to solve theirGod-given and self-inflicted troubles.Matthew Simpson ('23)-3515 EastOcean Blvd., #9, Long Beach, CA90803 - has retired but is neither downnor out, and is having much enjoyabletravel. He is an officer of two corporationsthat he had represented before hisretirement, so apparently they like hisability and his company and don't wanthim to get too far away.C. Victor Smith ('23)-2045 PineKnoll Drive, #6, Walnut Creek, CA94595 - is still in active practice but statesthat he is planning retirement. Don't giveup the ship, Victor! Keep on practicingretirementmight make you get old.Bertrand A. Bley ('25)-220 MontgomeryStreet, #300, San Francisco, CA94104-(we generally knew him as"Bert") is still in active practice, doing theusual professional work full time- andhopes to continue. He states that he hashad no recent honors, except from hisIfamily. This does not mean a "Lord andMaster" husband, I suppose, but arespected and loving sire. He has traveleda fair amount, mostly on freighters.John Edwin Carr ('25)-3939Virginia Road, #314, Long Beach, CA90807 - writes that after graduation witha law degree he never practiced, butengaged in foreign trade in LatinAmerica and in international banking.Later he was with Buffiun's Store in LongBeach for 25 years, leaving in 1959 tobecome director of employment anddirector of finance under Pat Brown. Heretired in 1962 and is now 84 years ofage. He has been active in Long Beachlocal civic affairs, and he and his wifehave done much traveling in the USA,Alaska, Hawaii, and Mexico. In 1975 hewent to Spain and Switzerland as abusiness consultant.Harley C. Hubbard (Prelegal'25)-8513 Owlwood Lane, Cincinnati,OH 45243 - is retired after spending hisentire career in the insurance and agencybusiness. We don't doubt that even hisshort stint at Stanford Law School madehim a better insurance man. He recentlytraveled the USA and Mexico by autoand hopes to celebrate his eightieth birthdayin June. Save us one of the candlesand a piece of the cake, Harley.[The following news was sent by JudgeLeon David (26), correspondent laureate ofthe Half Century Club. - ED.]The HonorableJoseph W. Vickers('12), retired from the Los AngelesSuperior Court some eighteen years ago,was regarded as one of the most able anddistinguished jurists ever to have gracedthat Bench. Not only that, for a generationand more he was Mr. Stanfordamong the lawyers of Southern California,and was actively concerned with LawSchool alumni in matters concerning therole and development of the School. Hewas no less enthusiastic in the activitiesof the alumni chapter of Phi Alpha Delta,and as an avid golfer, kept fit for hisrigorous court calendar and his Stanfordconnectedactivities.In a recent conversation, he stillmanifested vigor and alertness, regrettingthat a hip operation two years agoended his golf. "But I go to the club andplay-gin rummy, and have the chance tosee old friends go by."Early in his career Judge Vickers wasexecutive secretary to Governor FriendRichardson. After some years on the LosAngeles Superior Court, he returned toprivate practice, only to be appointedagain to the Court, serving over twentyyears. Never seeking any preferment forhimself, he and the late Frank Belcher('14) were among the lawyers whose opinionswere sought by various governorsconcerning qualifications of those consideredfor judicial appointment.1926Hon. Leon Thomas DavidP.O. Box 656Danville, CA 94526Fellow lawyers and judges carried on thetides of time into the Half Century Clubhave a reasonable interest in readingthese columns, simply to keep track oftheir surviving fellows. For others, newsof class members relegated after fiftyyears to retirements, trips, ills of the fleshor escape from them, children, grandchildrenand great-grandchildren, musthave little charm. With the expandingpopulation of Stanford alumni, there arefewer and fewer who have had professionalcontacts with members of our Sur-.vivors' Club. Would it not be more to the, point to review some of the achievementsof Stanford lawyers of fifty years ormore? Remember, all met the GreatDepression head on, and survived.That brings us to consider members ofthe prestigious law firm, known now asLillick, McHose & Charles; and for thiswriting, particularly John C. McHose(AB '24, JD '27), currently Los Angelescounsel to this firm, which hasoffices in Los Angeles, San Francisco,San Diego, and Washington, D.C. InStanford memories, he has always beenknown as "Nip" McHose, even though ascaptain and star of the Stanford basketballteams of the 'twenties, he showed hewas no lightweight in anything he did.Nip, always a team player, decries personalpublicity, but the curtain is rentsomewhat by Whos Who in America andby some Quad articles (which I probablywrote). The Quad discloses that "thecritics shook their heads and said hewould never make a varsity team becauseof lack of weight. "Nip" showed up thesecritics by not only making the varsity fivebut in being one of the starts on thesquad. He was uncanny on being able to-L fin~the bas~t from all angles:'I68Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

Nip was a four-star letter man, andcharter member of the Stanford AthleticHall of Fame; member of QuadrangleClub, Skull and Snakes, Phi Delta Theta,Phi Delta Phi, and Hammer and Coffin;and class president and classmanager, Nip's interest in Stanford hascarried on. He served on the AthleticBoard, was president of the AlumniAssociation in 1955-56 and received theDistinguished Achievement Award fromthe Athletic Board in 1982.In the legal field McHose has beenpresident of the Maritime Law Associationof the United States, a titularmember of the International MaritimeCommittee, a member of the House ofDelegates of the American Bar Association,chainnan of the Trial Lawyers Sectionof the Los Angeles County BarAssociation, fellow in the American Collegeof Trial Lawyers, and president ofthe Los Angeles Chancery Club.,In addition, McHose has held chairmanshipsand directorships withnumerous organizations, including LosAngeles Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation,Republic Petroleum Corporation,War Shipping Administration, CocaCola Bottling Companies in San Jose andPittsburgh, the Los Angeles Chamber ofCommerce, World Trade Week, and theMarine Exchange.McHose has also been interested inJapan and has been an officer, presentlycounselor, of the Japan America Societyof Southern California. The Lillick finnrepresents a number of Japanesebusiness concerns, banks, and underwriters.Though he retired as partner in 1973,he still works every day and representsthe finn in contacts with a number oforganizations and clients. While the finnnow emphasizes litigation, banking,business, and entertainment law, it alsocontinues to handle admiralty matters inwhich the late founding partner Ira S.Lillick ('97) specialized.Lillick was a distinguished trial lawyerof San Francisco, a trustee of Stanford,and greatly interested in the Law School.Long ago he and Mrs. Lillick each IIIIMemories of a HasherBy Hon. Leon David '26Stanford Union in the mid-1920s.There must have been some shades of Blackstone prowling around the main diningroom of the Stanford Union (now called the Old Union) from 1924 to 1926.Among the hashers of that period were five future judges: Leonard Avilla (AB'25, JD '27), judge of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, William L. Bradshaw(AB '24. JD '27) and Norman F. Main (JD '24), both judges of the SuperiorCourt of Kern County, and Anthony Brazil (AB '23. JD '26) judge of the SuperiorCourt of Monterey County. All are since deceased but fondly remembered by theirfellow hasher. I, too, later traded the hasher's white coat for judicial robes as judge of theSuperior Court of Los Angeles County. Since retirement I served over three years onassignment to the Courts of Appeal in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Fresno.Then there was Clarence J. "Red" Tauzer (AB '22, JD '23), the representativeof the Red Star Laundry who became a leader in the Santa Rosa bar; and Philip GreySmith (AB '23, JD '24), active in Phi Alpha Delta, and for many years a well-knownand respected practitioner in Los Angeles.And who was the hasher in those impoverished times who discovered an item on theUnion menu, "Eggs Vienna, 25 cents"? This item consisted of two eggs poached incream, with two strips of crisp bacon, served in a bowl, cream and all, with toast. Soseldom called for, it apparently was overlooked in Ma Handy's periodic revision of theprice structure. But said hasher could not make two meals a: day upon eggs viennawithout ultimately attracting attention to its popularity, especially when other hungrysouls found out about it.All this was, of course, after the demise of Tagawa's Inn, once the site where the CubberlyEducation Building stands today. There, rice, tea, and other oriental cookerylightened the burdens of the low-budget student. Remember? •established an annual $500 scholarship, 10------------------,----------------------1the best afforded for many a year. He left the first was Chalmers Graham (JD Richard Kelly (JD '22), Reid Briggsa substantial bequest to Stanford used in '23) until his death a leader of the San (AB '32), and Gus Mack (JD '28);part for the Ira S. Lillick Classroom,Room 280 of the new law building.In association and then later in partnerships,Francisco Bar. Each of the later partnerswith McHose deserves extended notice:Allan E. Charles (AB '25, JD '27),while still others have not yet reached theHalf Century mark, and some of thosenamed have passed on.the finn has had two or more Gilbert C. Wheat (AB '25, JD '27), McHose, justifiably proud of thegenerations of Stanford lawyers. One of James D. Adams (AB '15, JD '20), careers of his associates after they leftFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 69..l.

c~NOTESthe firm advises, that "Donn Tatum (AB'34) has just retired after being presidentand chairman of Walt Disney Productions.Tom Killifer (AB '38), becamepresident of the World Bank, latertreasurer of Chrysler Corporation, andnow is president of U.S. Trust andGuaranty Corporation:'Allan Charles, busy with the SanFrancisco office for many years, wasnews editor of the Daily Palo Alto, andawarded the Aupperle medal as themost valuable member of the track andfield squad at Stanford. His hard workand persistence was an inspiration to theentire squad. So in the law, and in communityservice in San Francisco, wherehe served as director of BART and amember of the Civil Service and WelfareCommission. His wife Caroline, nowdeceased, was a Stanford trustee formany years.But that's a Half Century Club storyfor another time. Adios.[For reminiscences of CorrespondentDavid's days as a hasher at the StanfordUnion, see box. - En.]1927Hon. David Lee Rosenau, Jr.Court HouseAthens, AL 35611Cutler W. (Hal) Halverson-415North 3rd Street, P.O. Box 526, Yakima,WA 98907 - writes that he is still in activepractice except for the fact that hespends two months a year traveling andplaying golf. Good old Hal! He was of adifferent class, but we ate together onmany occasions, and I knew him well.1928A. Hale Dinsmoor3501 Sausalito DriveCorona del Mar, CA 92625The Stanford Law School Class of 1928 isabout to celebrate its fifty-fifth anniversary.It has been about three years since Ireported to you about the activities of itsmembers. So, here is a recent report.Since our fiftieth reunion in 1978several classmates have been called tothe "Celestial Courtroom" and others havedeveloped health problems. Others havefinally retired.I regret to state that Eric C. Pepyspassed away on March 15, 1983, after ashort illness. He is survived by his wife,Mary, five children and nine grandchildren.Two of his children are attorneys.Son Mark graduated from BoaltHall and practices in Los Angeles,specializing in litigation. Daughter MaryNoel graduated from Hastings LawSchool and works for the U.S. StateDepartment with the "MultinationalForce and Observers." This groupoversees the withdrawal of the Israelisfrom the Sinai.Douglas (Doug) L. King died suddenlyon April 13, 1983 with a massiveheart attack. He is survived by his wife,Mary, his daughter, Jeanne KingCaldwell, and four grandchildren.Webster F. Street, now retired andliving in Carmel, reports through his wifethat he is no longer able to read or write.He does a bit of gardening, enjoys music,watches TV, and takes short walks.George F. Wasson has had to giveup his law office in Beverly Hills becauseof Alzheimer's disease. He is participatingin July in a research project forthe testing of a drug which may behelpful. George has two daughters andeight grandchildren, which are a comfortto him and his wife.Now for the classmates who are stillhale and hearty:Leighton Bledsoe, about whom welast reported in 1980, now spends mosthis time caring for his wife, who is confinedto a wheelchair as the result ofmany illnesses. However, he is acting asadministrator of an estate and is arbitratorin an arbitration case assigned tohim. His son, Dr. Turner Bledsoe, a Stanfordgraduate, is now medical director ofGroup Health Cooperative of PugetSound, headquartered in Seattle. Turnerhas two daughters now attending Stanfordand a third who seems headed therealso. Leighton's daughter, Peggy, is marriedto a botany professor at the Universityof British Columbia in Vancouver, B.C.None of her three daughters appearsheaded for Stanford.Ronald Button still divides his timebetween Beverly Hills and his home inThunderbird Country Club near PalmSprings. Most of his legal work is in connectionwith his own activities. He is stilldeveloping Rancho Mirage, but has hadto give up his two favorite activities, golfand polo, because of a "hip" problem.Kenneth M. Johnson has continuedhis hobby of California legal history. Hismost recent work is a short biography ofStephen Mallory White, published byDawson's Book Shop of Los Angeles. Hereceived an award of appreciation fromthe California State Bar for his work onits committee on legal history. He alsohas been doing some traveling.William R. Ouderkirk, the"senior" member of our class, willcelebrate his 90th birthday on June 29thof this year. He still plays golf(!), anddoes a bit of gardening, reading and TVwatching. He has eight greatgrandchildren.Can anyone in our classbeat that?I think that I have not previouslyreported on Charles C. Stratton, whowas present for dinner at our fiftieth reunion.Chuck retired in 1973 from the1;os Angeles Superior Court, after servingtwelve years. He immediately acceptedan assignment by the chiefjustice and continued to serve until 1977.Since then he has served as an arbitrator,being one of a panel of fiveretired judges from the Long Beachdistrict. Five years ago he was playinglots of golf, but had to give it up becauseof his "legs." Chuck has a son and twodaughters. His older daughter, MaryJoan, graduated from Stanford, has twomaster's degrees, and this month willreceive her J.D. degree - but not fromStanford.Stanley A. Weigel, our class "BillTilden," reports that he is still playingtennis. After exactly twenty years of serviceas an active United States districtjudge, he took senior status on October9, 1982. As a senior judge, there hasbeen very little diminution of hisworkload, mostly by choice. Takingsenior status enabled him to acceptintercircl;lit assignments.In April of this year he sat in Chicagowith the Circuit Court of Appeals for theSeventh Circuit. In May he planned doinga similar stint on the Circuit Courtfor the District of Columbia. In addition,he carries a workload of about one-thirdof that of the active judges in his ownU.S. District Court in San Francisco.As to his personal statistics - he hastwo daughters, one married to a SanFrancisco lawyer and the other to aBoston cardiologist. Also four grandchildren.He has saved some time for70Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

travel-France and Italy in 1982, andhopefully the United Kingdom in 1983.Carl W. Anderson lives in Hillsborough,California. He retired over tenyears ago and is doing a lot of traveling.In June 1983, the Andersons went on afour-week trip to China.Frederick I. Richman has closedhis law office in Laguna Beach andretired to Leisure World in Laguna Hillsnearby. He has a secretary who helpshim with his personal affairs, but hasgiven up law practice. He made a goodrecovery from his knee operations of afew years ago and has traveled extensively.He returned in January from atrip to Africa, Asia and Europe. He isnow studying Chinese and hopes to go toChina in 1984.Leon B. Brown is a member of thefirm of Beaudry & Brown, in LosAngeles. Open heart surgery in 1979 hasrequired that he live a rather sedentarylife. However, he still goes to his officethree days each week. Leon refers mosthis work to his son, Laurence, who is amember of his firm. Laurence and hiswife, Nancy, both attended StanfordLaw School. Laurence is a specialist inestate planning, probate and taxation.His wife, Nancy, is now a MunicipalCourt judge in Los Angeles.Harold G. (Hal) King retired fromWells Fargo Bank on April 1, 1970, butcontinued to represent the Bank as atrustee of the S. H. Cowell Foundationuntil April 1, 1980. Since then he has enjoyedgood health and recently returnedfrom spending a month on a beach inHawaii. We have just learned that the S.H. Cowell Foundation recentlyestablished the Harold G. King FinancialAid Fund at the Law School with a$250,000 grant. In recognition of thisgift the Law School Moot Court Roomhas been named "The Harold G. KingMoot Court Room." [See School News section.-En.]Chester E. (Chet) Ross is still practicinglaw in Hollister, California) wherehe has been a sole practitioner since1934. His practice for many years was ageneral practice taking civil and criminal.cases, divorce cases, probate cases, andquite a bit of tax work. Chet has nowlimited his practice to estate planning,drawing wills and probating estates. Hehas traveled extensively since 1976,visiting the Hawaiian Islands, Europe,Mexico, the Baltic, Greece and theMediterranean, and Alaska. His mainFall 1983 Stanford Lawyeractivity, however, is golf, which he playsWednesday and Friday afternoons, andon Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.Not bad for an 80-year-old!Charles Leo Rachford, whobecame a banker instead of practicinglaw, still lives in Big Canyon, NewportBeach, CA. He is in good health; stilldoes volunteer community work and enjoysbridge, the theatre, fishing, andretirement life in general.George W. Tackabury hasspecialized in trial work after leavinglaw school, mostly in defense work,representing insurance companies. He isstill actively practicing and is affiliatedwith the firm of Burke, Williams &Sorensen in Los Angeles. He states thathis only hobby is work and claims thathe works six days a week (I don't believeit, either). George has two daughters,one of whom graduated from StanfordMedical School with honors, marriedanother doctor, and is now on the staffofthe University of California at SantaCruz. His other daughter lives in SanFrancisco, and his son is with the WangCorporation in Boston.After more than 54 years' associationwith the firm of Hahn & Hahn inPasadena, your class correspondent,Hale Dinsmoor, has decided to retire,at the end of April. I have also closed thepart-time office that I had with my son inCosta Mesa. I am still doing a little incometax work from my home and havea few probate matters to close. These,with a little golf and some travel, willkeep me as busy as I want to be. Futuretrips include two weeks in Hawaii inAugust, with our two children and fourgrandchildren, to celebrate our fiftiethwedding anniversary. We also are planninga four-week trip to South Africa inSeptember.1929Suren M. SaroyanCartwright, Sucherman, Slobodin& Fowler, Inc.160 Sansome Street, Suite 900San Francisco, CA 941041930Please send your news to:Class Notes EditorStanford LawyerCrown Quad 13Stanford Law SchoolStanford, CA 943051931Hon. Ben. C. Duniwayu.s. Court of AppealsNinth Judicial CircuitSeventh & Mission StreetsSan Francisco, CA 941011932J. Robert Arkush3550 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1418Los Angeles, CA 900101933George E. Bodle344 S. Rossmore AvenueLos Angeles, CA 900201934Richard E. Ryan24085 SummerhillLos Altos, CA 94022The Fiftieth Reunion of our Class of '34will probably be held at the end of thesecond week in October 1984, accordingto Elizabeth Lucchesi, the Law School'sdirector of alumni relations, who isalready extending invitations to ProfessorsLowell Turrentine and JohnHurlbut to attend as special guests.Please put this date on your calendarand plan to be there! In the meantime, ifyou send me any suggestions you mighthave, 111 get them to the right place.Was sorry to hear, somewhat late, ofthe June 1982 death of Frank P.Adams, who practiced in San Francisco71

c~NOTESand had been prominent in a number ofhigh-level political campaigns.Lately Jean Blum has been spendingless time in his Acapulco "vacation" abodeand more at his Los Gatos residence.Jean is devoting much of his interests tohis duties as chairman of the Long RangePlanning Committee of the Board ofTrustees of his pet philanthropy, the LosGatos Community Hospital. He was oneof the founding directors and for manyyears served as counsel for the hospital.Had a recent phone conversation withWally (The Honorable Walter E.)Craig of Phoenix. Still active as a judgeof the U.S. District Court, Wally is continuingto enjoy judicial assignments in anumber of distant areas. He had justfinished five weeks handling the civildocket in Knoxville, Tennessee; recentlysat in Reno in connection with a numberof interesting Indian claims in thePyramid Lake area; and is still"working" on the Indian fishing cases inOregon and Washington.This spring the Student Bar Associationof Pepperdine University LawSchool, Los Angeles, sponsored a hugeretirement dinner at Bellaire CountryClub for our Professor Wadieh S.Shibley as he finished a long career onthe law school faculty at Pepperdine.Although now in an emeritus status,'Wadieh considers himself only semiretiredand expects to continue teachingon a limited basis.Unfortunately Wadieh had to undergoheart surgery at St. Vincent's Hospital, .Los Angeles, shortly after his retirement,but at last report was well on theroad to recovery.Recently your correspondent (DickRyan, of course) attended a large luncheonat which a group of the morevenerable alumni of Long BeachPolytechnic High School paid tribute totheir contemporaries of the bench andbar. Our classmates attending includingWadieh and his brother George E.:Shibley, who is in private practice inLong Beach with his two sons.One of the special guests was TheHonorable Charles C. (Chuck)Stratton ('28) recently retired fromthe superior bench, Los Angeles County.Others with Stanford background includedWalter J. Desmond, Jr.('33), who has a busy probate practicein Long Beach; Lynn O. Hossom.('30), retired General Counsel of HancockOil Company; Col. John W.72Doran, AUS (Ret.), who spent a year atthe Law School about 1932; and WilliamV. Artman, a former Stanfordundergraduate who, like his late brother,Corwin, was a stalwart on the StanfordVarsity during the time of Pop Warnerand Tiny Thornhill. Bill was counsel forthe Veterans Administration in the LosAngeles area for many years.With his finesse and expertise in fundraising, developed during his long careeras secretary to the university, DaveJacobson has, since his retirementbeen serving from time to time as a consultantfor other schools and colleges inconnection with their money-raisingcampaigns. He has a very interesting internationalproject in hand now as a consultantfor the Gregorian University ofRome, Italy, administered by the JesuitOrder.The Jacobsons have enjoyed a considerableamount of travel since Dave'sretirement. Their latest was a cruisethrough the inland waterway from Savannah,Georgia, to Baltimore.1935Stanley J. MaddenPillsbury, Madison & SutroP.O. Box 7880San Francisco, CA 941201936Mary R. Mulcahy1150 Swanston DriveSacramento, CA 958181937John Bennett King550 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301Nick Alaga writes: "I'm still alive."Alger Fast and his wife plan to spendfive weeks in Italy this summer, duringwhich time they will attend a two-weekseminar at the Florence campus.Dick Hungate spends willter monthsat Leisure World in Laguna Hills andsummer months on Priest Lake in Idaho.He enjoys tennis, golf, skiing, sailing, andwind-surfing. He also plays the violin.Ed Martindale is the owner of a fooddistributorship in Portland.Tom Moroney spends considerabletime going to weddings and funerals.Recently he arbitrated several cases forthe San Mateo County Superior Court.He enjoys visiting with his eight childrenand twenty-seven grandchildren.Bill Reppy is a retired justice of theCalifornia District Court of Appeals, buthe continues to handle arbitrations andreferences. He and his wife live inMontecito. This summer they will gowith Stanford to Italy and the Adriatic.Harlow Rothert is still actively practicinglaw in San Francisco with the firmof Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft. Forrecreation he plays golf and gardens.George Swarth is now comfortablyestablished in retirement in Palo Alto.,Among other hobbies, George translatesFrench poetry into English.1938Burton J. GoldsteinGoldstein, Barceloux & Goldstein650 California StreetSan Francisco, CA 94108We look forward to seeing all members ofthe Class of 1938 at our Forty-fifth ClassReunion, during the Alumni/aeWeekend, October 7th and 8th. AylettB. Cotton is Reunion Chairman.1939Robert N. BlewettBlewett, Garretson & HachmanEden Park Building141 E. Acacia StreetStockton, CA 96202I am pleased to report that Judge JimToothaker is making good progress inrecovering from his stroke of last fall. Hismain complaint is not being able to joinhis buddies on the golf course as yet.Judge Bill Woodward, who retired'several years ago, is busy with communityservice endeavors.Our illustrious graduate, Sam Thur-L man, together with your scribe, attendedJStanford Lawyer Fall 1983

the American Law Institute luncheon forlife members at its annual meeting inWashington, D.C. last May.Ed Butterworth, our lawyer turnedbusinessman, president of Fedco, reportsthat his company did well in 1982. Ed andhis lovely wife, Shirley, are leaving shortlyfor a trip to China, Hong Kong andTaiwan.1940R.L. McNitt, Jr.Rose Hills Memorial Park3900 S. Workman Mill RoadWhittier, CA 906011941Elster S. Haile230 California StreetPalo Alto, CA 943061942Robert B. Curtiss728 Club House DriveAptos, CA 950031943Ward W. Waddell, Jr.495 San FernandoSan Diego, CA 9210611944IIIGloria M. BeutlerGeneral CounselNapa Valley Unified School District2425 Jefferson StreetNapa, CA 945581945Bob picked up more information aboutmodest Charlie than I have been able toferret out in years of Charlie's visits toSan Francisco. Charlie was the founder ofthe American Society some years ago,Avis Winton Waltonand was its long-time president.397 Fletcher DriveMargaret is now manager of the Society.Atherton, CA 94025Charlie retired not long ago as managingdirector of Stauffer Chemicals inAustralia, but in six months, he got sobored that he has now joined a firm of1946patent attorneys in Sydney. Charlie andMargaret live in a large strata-flat (con-Please send your news to:dominiwn to you) at Darling Point, whichClass Notes Editorjuts out over Sydney Harbor. Bob says heStanford Lawyerwill never forget sitting in the Coles' livingroom and watching twilight andCrown Quad 13Stanford Law SchoolI darkness come over the harbor. Not onlyStanford, CA 94305I is Charlie Junior a rock star, but his group1947was nwnber 20 on U.S. charts and hasboth a gold and platinwn record. Bobsays that when he returned to Marin, hepicked up some reflected glory by droppingthe name of the group- the MovingRobert C. ElkusPictures-to some young types. But whyRobert C. Elkus, Inc.does Charlie amtinue to work? He has555 California Street, Suite 2460achieved the American dream: a rockSan Francisco, CA 94104star son to take care of him.Had a Christmastime lunch at theNorth Beach Restaurant with ArtToupin, Phil Ehrlich, Bob Foley,1948Judge Winslow Christian, JerryDowns, Fred Mielke, BarneyHon. Kenneth M. EymannFavaro and Kim Allison. Much praiseSonoma County Superior Courtof Foley and Barney for making it to San2555 Mendocino AvenueFrancisco in a driving rainstorm. (Later inSanta Rosa, CA 95401the season, we got so used to the rain thatwe forgot there was any other kind ofweather.) Art Toupin, vice chairman ofBank of America, had just been named to1949another top post: board chairman ofBankAmerica Trust Co. of New York.. Benjamin H. Parkinson The next May, Judge Christian an-Ackerman, Johnston, Campbell &Parkinsonnounced his retirement from the StateCourt of Appeal for the First Appellate2400 Russ Building District. Winslow decided to return toSan Francisco, CA 94104private practice after seventeen years onthe Court. Couldn't reach Winslow to findBob Pendergrass and Charlie Cole out whether he plans to practice in Sanwin this issue's award for "Out of the Francisco or Alpine County. WhenCountry Get-Togethers," Southern Winslow graduated from law school, heHemisphere category. Before a visit to started practice in Alpine County, whereAustralia and New Zealand, Bob had as I recall there were 900 residents andwritten ahead to Charlie in Sydney, sug- only one other lawyer. He was quicklygesting that they get together for lunch. elected district attorney and before longAs Bob put it, Charlie and Margaret were was the judge. Governor Pat Brown thenso hospitable that he ended up spending persuaded Winslow to leave and becomequite a bit of time with them. They drove a member of his cabinet. Tune in nextBob around, took him to the clubrooms of issue to find out where Winslow is goingthe American Society, and entertained to practice, and much, much more.III------ ...L him at dinner. -l.._ Now this. -----JFall 1983 Stanford Lawyer 73

spring Dean Ely traveledLEast, where he was a featuredguest at several Law School events.The Chicago Law Society,headed by Carol Peterson, held areception in the Dean's honor onMarch 10.New York graduates had anopportunity to meet the Dean March14 at a reception, organized by KendylMonroe, at the Time LifeBuilding.And on March 16 the Deangreeted alumni/ae ata Boston LawSociety meeting organized byHenry Wheeler.Professor and Law Librarian J.Myron Jacobstein was welcomed byTexas alumni/ae at a receptionheld in Houston on June 27.Many summer events wereplanned by law societies throughoutthe country to bring graduates, students,and entering students together.The Washington StateLaw Society held a picnic July 8,hosted by George and Colleen Willoughby.The Washington, DC,Law Society sponsored a receptionat the offices of Hogan & Hartson,on July 18, organized by DavidHayes. And the New York LawSociety held a cocktail party Jilly20 at Proskauer Rose Goetz& Mendelsohn, hosted by AlanRosenberg.See the back cover for an earlyschedille of coming events. You willbe receiving information on theseand other activities during the nextfew months.•Washington Law Society President Jackie Brown (front center) andpicnic host George Willoughby (third row, plaid shirt) with Seattleareaalumni/ae.90 Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

STANFORDLAW SOCIETIESArizonaGraeme E. Hancock ('80)Fennemore, Craig, von Ammon& Powers1600 First Interstate Bank100 West Washington StreetPhoeniz, AZ 95003(602) 257-8700ChicagoCarol M. Petersen ('66)Schuyler, Roche & Zwirner3100 Prudential PlazaChicago, IL 60601(312) 565-2400East BayWilliam R. Pedder ('67)1361 Park StreetSuite 214Alameda, CA 94501(415) 521-4575Mid-PeninsulaMarilyn D. Taketa ('69)Finch, Sauers, Player & Bell755 Page Mill RoadBuilding Al180Palo Alto, CA 94304(415) 856-7900Victor H. Beauzay ('51)Beauzay, Hammar, Ezgar,Bledsoe & Rucka300 West Hedding StreetSan Jose, CA 95110(408) 298-4606New YorkCynthia Lewis Beck ('80)Simpson, Thacher & BartlettOne Battery Park PlazaNew York, NY 10004(212) 908-3445Ronald N. Beck ('80)HBO, Inc.1271 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10020(212) 484-1102OregonLeonard A. Girard ('67)Stoel, Rives, Boley, Fraser&Wyse900 S.W. Fifth AvenuePortland, OR 97204(503) 224-3380PhiladelphiaCharles R. Bruton ('71)Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis1719 Packard BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19102(215) 988-2000Bruce A. Rosenfield ('76)Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis1719 Packard BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19102(215) 988-2000San DiegoTheodore W. Graham ('63)Luce, Forward, Hamilton &ScrippsBank of California Plaza110 West A StreetSuite 1700San Diego, CA 92101(619) 236-1414San FranciscoLucinda Lee ('71)Flynn & Steinberg220 Jackson StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111(415) 434-4774R. Frederick Caspersen ('71)Farella, Braun & Martell235 Montgomery StreetSuite 3100San Francisco, CA 94104(415) 981-3722Southern CaliforniaStephen F. Harbison ('68)& MyersTenth Floor626 Wilshire Blvd.Los Angeles, CA 90017(213) 628-1291Alan B. Pick ('71)Gansinger & Pick619 South OliveSuite 303Los Angeles, CA 90014(213) 680-4240WashingtonJackie R. Brown ('75)Office of the Prosecuting AttorneyKing County Courthouse516 Third AvenueSeattle, WA 98104(206) 583-2200Washington, D.C.Cornelius J. Golden, Jr. ('73)Foreman & Dyess1920 N Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 785-9200Stanford Women LawyersChristine Curtis ('71)Department of Industrial Relations525 Golden Gate AvenueRoom 614San Francisco, CA 94102(415) 557-2746Patricia Cutler ('71)P.O. Box 603San Francisco, CA 94102(415) 557-3651Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer91

5Stanford LaWlers:This Page IsYours~Tap into one of the most incredible networksever. Our magazine reaches over 7,500 of thenation's finest-all alums and friends of the LawSchool.You are invited to use this page to find a vacationretreat, advertise your new venture, seek a set ofthe Brittanica 11th, or even enlist crew membersfor a round-the-world sailing trip.See below for further information.STANFORD JOURNALOF INTERNATIONALLAWForthcoming titles:Proof and Pleading of Foreign LawInternational Investment and LendingPracticesAnnual subscription $18 ($22 overseas)Stanford Journal of International LawStanford Law SchoolStanford, CA 94305Real Estate & ChattelsIt would be hard to reach more people' ina better position to buy and appreciateyour property -personal or real.:..- thanyour fellow alums.House ExchangeExplore new places with all the comfortsof home-someone else's.WantedIfyou're looking for a rare book orrecording, 14,500 of the sharpest eyes inthe country are better than just two.Vacation RentalVacationing elsewhere this season? Youcan place an ad for your house or condominiumwith us.Specialties & SidelinesTell alums about your latest book.Promote your rafting expeditions, estatebottledwine, or Dixieland band.Men's tie, all silk, by Givenchy of Paris.Modern 3" width. Navy background withStanford Law School shields of purple,white, and red.$25 each, postpaid. (California residentsadd $1.63 sales tax.)Women's scarf, all silk, by Carter andHolmes, 24" square. White background,with border and shields in lavender and red.$22 each, postpaid. (California residentsadd $1.43 sales tax.)Please make checks payable toStanford Law School.Place orders with:Elizabeth Lucchesi, Director of Alumni/aeRelations .Stanford Law SchoolStanford, CA 94305(415) 497-2730Forthcoming 1983 Annual:Energy Production and PublicUtility Regulation$10. (California residents add $.65sal~s tax.) Postage and handling $1.50.)STANFORDENVIRONMENTALLAW SOCIETYStanford Law School, Stanford, CA 94305(415) 497-4421How to Place AdsSend text (typed or clearlyprinted) to: Michele Foyer,Room 13, Crown Quad,Stanford, CA 94305.Rates: $20 minimum, includesup to 20 words. $1for each additional word.For information on displayads, call Ms. Foyer at (415)497-9302.All advertising subject topublisher's approval.92Stanford Lawyer Fall 1983

The new namein legal search isL~~~TTMMartindale Services hasdesigned LEXNET to meet theneed for effective, discreet legalplacement and recruitment.LEXNET represents a totallynew concept in search - aselect, confidential network ofattorneys and preferred legalpositions nationwide.With LEXNET, MartindaleServices brings the Martindaletradition of trust and highstandards to the business oflocating legal talent andopportunities.Employer or job-seeker, weprotect your identity. Oursearch is focused, not random.We screen carefully, consideringyour stated preferences andqualifications. Yet LEXNET willallow you to search for a lawyeror a legal position in jobmarkets across the nation.LEXNET service is free toexperienced lawyers.If you are looking, look intoLEXNET. Now you can rely onMartindale, when the time isright for a change.To learn more about LEXNETand Martindale Services, call orwrite in confidence:LexnetT\l is a trademark of \1anindak 'X'lyicl'~. IncMartindale Senices, Inc.19 West 44th StreetNew York, NY 10036Telephone:(212) 382-3600(800) 223-6111TINDALEMartindale Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Martindale-Hubbell, Inc.ADVERTISEMENT

October 11Washington, DC LawSociety. Reception with Dean Ely.May 3-4Board of Visitors AnnualMeeting, at Stanford.October 26October 28Washington Law Society,in Seattle. Dinner with Dean Ely.Oregon Law Society,in Portland. Reception with Dean Ely.May 4Marion Rice KirkwoodMoot Court Competition,at Kresge Auditorium,Stanford Law School, Stanford.April 27Law Alumni/ae Reception,in New York City. Featuredguests: Dean Ely and ProfessorBarbara Babcock. (Held inconjunction with StanfordAlumni Association conference.)For information, call ElizabethLucchesi, Director ofAlumni/aeRelations(415) 497-2730.STANFORD UNIVERSITYStanford Law SchoolStanford, California 94305Nonprofit Organizationu.S. PostagePAIDStanford University

ANNUAL REPORT OF GIVINGSTANFORD LAW FUND 1982

COMPARATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TOTHE LAW FUND1981 1982-A* 1982-B*ALUMNI/AE 1,370 $594,892 1,482 $616,946 1,481 $513,946FACULTY, FORMERFACULTY &STAFF 31 12,315 35 11,988 35 11,988PARENTS 20 10,060 15 24,150 15 24,150FRIENDS 87 130,523 87 101,768 84 58,896LAW FIRMS 21 25,052 19 23,060 18 13,060CORPORATIONS &FOUNDATIONS 63 80,242 86 151,414 81 111 ,914STUDENTS - 207 - 16 - 16-- -- --1,592 $853,291 1,724 $929,342 1,714 $733,970Less duplicate credits 7 2,150 9 2,100 9 2,100-- --- -- --1,585 $851,141 1,715 $927,242 1,705 $731,870*The year 1982 marked a transition from one set ofcriteria for counting Law Fund gifts to another.Two columns of figures are given, to reflect comparisonsbetween the old criterion (1982-A) andthe new one (1982-8), which will be used in thefuture. The main feature of the change is thatnonrecurring, major gifts, which had been in-eluded in the past but which the School could expectto receive only once, will no longer becounted in the annual fund results. (The oldsystem complicated goal-setting, and made the"success" of our volunteers' efforts dependenton factors beyond their ability to influence.)Total Unrestricted Gifts for 1982$510,454LAW SCHOOL ENDOWMENT GROWTHBalance8/31/81$23,917,000Growth$1,174,394Balance8/31/82$25,091,3942Stanford Law Fund 1982

This report gratefully acknowledges the generosity of the manyalumni/ae and friends whose gifts to the 1982 Law Fund haveprovided vital support for the day-to-day operations of StanfordLaw School.The Law Fund operates on a calendar year basis. This report listsgifts postmarked through December 31, 1982. Gifts with 1983postmarks have been gratefully received and will be acknowledgedin the 1983 Report.CONTENTSA Message from theLaw Fund President 4Law Fund Volunteers 5Inner Quad Program 7Quad Program 9Donors to the Law Fund 16Alumni/ae 16Faculty, FormerFaculty &Staff 28Parents 28Friends 28Law Firms 29Corporations &Foundations 29ComparativeContributions by Class 26LAW FUNDCOUNCILMyrl R. Scott '55Law Fund PresidentLeonard A. Goldman '56Inner QuadNational ChairmanGeorge E. Stephens, Jr. '62Quad National ChairmanJay A. Canel '55Law Parents CommitteeNational ChairmanCharles Stearns '33Deferred GivingNational ChairmanSTANFORDLAW SCHOOLDEVELOPMENTSTAFFVictoria Sainz Diaz '75Assistant Dean(415) 497-3018Kate H. Godfrey, A.B. '73Director, Law Fund(415) 497-9504Phyllis M. MunroAdministrative Assistantto the Law Fund andAnnual ReportCoordinator(415) 497-4463Reunion Giving 30Matching Gifts 31Donors to SpecialPrograms & Funds 32Corporations &Foundations 32Friends of the StanfordLaw Library 32Carl B. SpaethScholarship Fund 32Principal Law SchoolEndowment Funds 33Memorial and HonorificGifts 36Bequests and DeferredGiving 411982 Stanford Law Fund3

A MESSAGE FROM THELAW FUND PRESIDENTOn December 31, 1981, John O'Connor finished two successfulterms as President of the Law Fund. We aregrateful for his significant contribution to the growth ofthe Law Fund during his Presidency, but succeeding aveteran fund raiser like John was no easy task. I amhappy to report, though, that 1982 marked another year ofgrowth for the Law Fund, a remarkable achievement inlight of the unfavorable economic climate in 1982. It istherefore particularly gratifying that, despite the uncertaineconomy, the Law School's alumni/ae and friends demonstratedto the new Dean their continued strong support ofthe School.Donors and volunteers are listed herein, but I want toadd my deepest thanks to each and every donor and toeach and every Law Fund volunteer. Over 200 alumni/aeserved their alma mater as Law Fund volunteers in 1982,and I want to personally thank each one of them for theircapable and dedicated efforts.I hope you enjoy the Commencement 1983 photoswithin this report. As you think back to your own graduation,I hope you will reflect on the School's impact on yourown life and career since then. And as you read throughthe accompanying issue of the Stanford Lawyer andreflect upon the many accomplishments of faculty,students, and your fellow alumni/ae, remember that yourgifts helped make Stanford Law School's achievementspossible. It is my great hope that all of you who aredonors will continue to give and that the rest of you willjoin us in helping Stanford Law School build further uponthe success it is enjoying today.~~Myrl R. Scott '55President, 1982Stanford Law Fund4Stanford Law Fund 1982

LAW FUND VOLUNTEERSThe individuals listed below volunteered a precious commodity-time-tothe School during the 1982 Law Fund annual appeal.LAW INNER QUADFUND VOLUNTEERSCOUNCIL REGIONALCHAIRMENMyrl R. Scott '55ArizonaLaw Fund President Richard K. Mallery '63New YorkKendyl K. Monroe '60Orange CountyCharles G. Armstrong '67OregonDouglas G. Houser '60PeninsulaLeonard A. Goldman '56 District of ColumbiaJohn R. Griffiths '60Inner Quad Jerome C. Muys '57National ChairmanSan Diego-ImperialEast BayTheodore W. Graham '63George E. Stephens, Jr. '52 Justin M. Roach, Jr. '55Quad National ChairmanFresnoSan Francisco-MarinJay A. Canel '55 Richard D. Andrews '56 Charles A. Legge '54Law Parents CommitteeNational Chairman Westside (Los Angeles) SeattleCharles D. Silverberg '55 George V. Willoughby, Jr. '58Charles Stearns '33Deferred Giving Los Angeles UtahNational Chairman John W. Armagost '56 Leonard J. Lewis '50QUADVOLUNTEERSAREAVICE-CHAIRMENLawrence A. Aufmuth '69East Bay, San Francisco­Marin, San Mateo County,Santa Clara County North,Santa Clara County SouthJ. Nicholas Counter III '60Long Beach, Los Angeles I,Los Angeles II, LosAngeles III, Los AngelesIV, Orange County, SanDiego-ImperialGeorge V. Willoughby, Jr. '58Arizona, Colorado,Washington State, OregonJames S. Campbell '57Douglas B. Jensen '67Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada,SacramentoDonald W. Morrison '50District of Columbia,Midwest, New YorkREGIONALCHAIRMEN ANDVOLUNTEERSArizonaJohn V. Berry '81ColoradoLynn W. Lehman '68District of ColumbiaScott W. Bowen '72,Co-chairmanWilliam F. Kroener III '71,Co-chairmanEast BayMichael S. Ostrach '76FresnoJames H. Flanagan, Jr. '61HawaiiDavid L. Irons '641982 Stanford Law Fund5

CLASSAGENTSLong BeachSterling S. Clayton '53,ChairmanJohn D. Miller '53Los Angeles IWilliam L. Cole '77,ChairmanEugene H. Veenhuis '71Los Angeles IIHonorable M. PeterKatsufrakis '58Los Angeles IIIRobert S. Amador '79Los Angeles IVRex A. Heeseman '67,ChairmanRobert M. Newell, Jr. '69Jess E. Sotomayor '82Gary A. York '68MidwestJohn J. Sabl '76,ChairmanR. Andrew Duncan '77Richard R. Ertel '76Kenneth M. Jacobson '79Janet R. Montgomery '76NevadaRichard W. Harris '75New YorkL. Francis Huck '72OrangeJohn B. Hurlbut, Jr. '64OregonDouglas G. Houser '60SacramentoAlvin D. Gress '70San Diego-ImperialRobert Caplan '60San Francisco-MarinR. Frederick Caspersen '71,ChairmanChristopher D. Burdick '68Mary B. Cranston '75Robert A. Epsen '71R. Frederick Fisher '61Edwin V. Grundstrom '56Richard D. Maltzman '59Suren M. Saroyan '29Fern M. Smith '75David B. Whitehead '71San Mateo CountyStephen H. Siabach '61,ChairmanMarion L. Brown '67Quentin L. Cook '66Howard M. Daschbach '51R. Hollis Eliott '62John D. Jorgenson'50Michael D. McCracken '71Robert A. Prior'49Santa Clara County NorthGordon K. Davidson '74Santa Clara County SouthJohn F. Hopkins '57Washington StateW. Michael Hafferty '741932 John Paul Jennings1933 Laurence M. Weinberg1934 Albert L. Denney1936 D. Ray Owen, Jr.1938 Benjamin D. Dreyfus1939 A. L. Burford, Jr.1940 Jesse Feldman1945 Francisco A. Guido1946 David K. Robinson1947 Gerson F. Goldsmith1948 James D. Harris1951 Douglas B.Hughmanick1952 Arthur J. Lempert1954 Paul W. Swinford1955 Newman R. Porter1956 William J. Codiga1957 William E. MuraneDouglas C. White1958 Thomas R. Mitchell1959 Lloyd S. Kurtz, Jr.1960 Robert E. Hurley1961 Anthony J. Trepel1962 Kerry C. Smith1963 Karl H. Bertelsen1964 C. Stephen Heard, Jr.1965 LeRoy J. Neider1966 William A. Dorland1967 David C. Loring1968 Donald E. Phillipson1969 Jay S. Berlinsky1970 Gilbert C. Berkeley1971 Lucinda Lee1972-W. James Ware1973 Edward A. Firestone1975 Thomas C. Kildebeck1976 John J. Sabl1977 Lage E. Andersen1978 Gregory B. Payne1979 Ronald M. Roth1980 Russell C. Hansen1981 Kathleen B. Shaw6Stanford Law Fund 1982

INNER QUAD PROGRAMThe members of the Inner Quad are alumni/ae and friends whogive $1,000 or more annually to Stanford Law School. The LawFund Council designates as Benjamin Harrison Fellows thoseindividuals who contribute $2,500 or more, and as Nathan AbbottFellows those individuals who contribute $1,000 to $2,499.Robert E. Paradise '29• Karl S. Price '50G. Williams Rutherford '50Bruce Sattler '69Myrl R. Scott '55Talbot Shelton, A.B. '37Charles D. Silverberg '55Mrs. Samuel Morton SmithCharles Stearns '33David J. Stone '48Walter L. Weisman '59Mrs. Henry Wheeler, Jr. ('50)Mrs. Heaton L. WrennBENJAMINHARRISONFELLOWSJames W. Boyle '59Jerome I. Braun '53• Mr. and Mrs. Edgar M. ButtnerS. C. Chillingworth '51Hon. John J. Crown, A.B. '51Mark L. Dees '58John Freidenrich '63Frank W. Fuller, Jr. '24James M. Galbraith '67Paul M. Ginsburg '68Bruce L. Gitelson '64Victor Goehring '54• Jerome L. Goldberg '57Kenton C. Granger '62Colleen Gershon Haas '71Richard G. Hahn'49David B. Heyler, Jr. '51Victor B. Levit '53Louis Lieber, Jr., A.B. '31S.K. Linden'35• Mr. and Mrs. Charles I. Lobel ('83)• John B. Mitchell, A.B. '52• Thomas R. Mitchell'59Harle Garth Montgomery, Aft. '38Kenneth F. MontgomeryJames T. Morton'48NATHANABBOTTFELLOWSWilliam H. Allen '56Martin Anderson '49John W. Armagost '56William H. Armstrong '67Lawrence A. Aufmuth '67James E. S. BakerJames J. Baker '47John F. Banker '56Stephen Barnett '54• Robert I. Beaver '71Anne Kovakovich Bingaman '68Sen. Jesse F. Bingaman, Jr. '68Guy Blase '58Paul G. Bower '63John W. Brahm '67• Richard A. Bridges '53John W. Broad'42Anthony P. Brown '52Phillip E. Brown '52Stephen R. Brown '72Charles E. Bruton '71William M. Burke '67Christopher D. Burdick '68Robert Caplan '60Richard Carver '57Ann Harrison Casto '71Don M. Casto III '69Hon. Richard H. Chambers '32Mr. and Mrs. Pon Chang ('85)( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sclass year.• New Inner Quad fellow1982 Stanford Law Fund7

Warren Christopher'49 Penny Howe Gallo Edmund H. Kerr '51 Norman B. Richards '51Everett B. Clary'49 Leonard A. Goldman '56 Robert L. King '60 Justin M. Roach, Jr. '55• William B. Collister '51 • John R. Griffiths '60 Rex W. Kramer '31 • Paul K. Robertson '61Aylett B. Cotton '38 • Hon. Cynthia Holcomb Hall Herbert Kraus'55 • John M. Rolls, Jr. '62J. Nicholas Counter III '66 '54 William F. Kroener III '71 Ronald S. Rosen '57James F. Crafts, Jr. '53 Mrs. Faith F. Halley ('68) Prof. Richard B. Kuhns '67 David L. Sandborg '60Donald W. Crocker '58 Artemus W. Ham, Jr., Lucinda Lee '71 Prof. Gordon K. Scott• James S. Crown '80 Aff. '44 Charles A. Legge '54 Kafldis Vengris Scott '66• James E. Culhane '66 James W. Hamilton '59 John P. Levin '73 George A. Sears '52Vincent Cullinan '36 John Paul Hanna '59 • Laurence M. Linneman '29 Hugh Shearer III '51Richard D. DeLuce '55 Lee A. Hansen '53 Walter P. Lukens '55 Lawrence J. Sheehan '59Charles C. Dietrich'52 • Stephen F. Harbison '68 Kenneth B. MacKenzie '72 Barton C. Sheela, Jr. '50George R. Doty '52 • Robert P. Hastings Mrs. Clarisse H. Main, A.B. Marshall L. Small '51Hon. Murray Draper '30 John L. Hauer'48 '22 Kerry C. Smith '62Hon Ben. C. Duniway '31 Thomas E. Haven'48 Richard K. Mallery '63 Richard B. Snell '54Howard N. Ellman '59 George M. Henzie '49 Assoc. Dean J. Keith Mann Christina A. Snyder '72Dean John Hart Ely James O. Hewitt '58 Lloyd W. Mason '51 • Richard E. Sobelle '60Northcutt Ely '26 Carla A. Hills, A.B. '55 Darrell P. McCrory'49 Keith L. Stahle '37Robert F. Erburu Roderick M. Hills '55 John R. McDonough • William C. Stein '31• Dr. Marjorie W. Evans '72 John F. Hopkins '57 Lester S. McElwain '34 Glen E. Stephens '52• Robin D. Faisant '58 Albert J. Horn '51 James H. McGee '70 • Ronald L. Styn '65Frank E. Farella '54 Ellis J. Horvitz '51 Joseph T. Melczer, Jr. '37 Irving Sulmeyer '51G. Edward Fitzgerald '53 Philip J. Hudner '55 Prof. John Henry Merryman Louise A. Sunderland '73Charles K. Fletcher, A.B. '24 • Douglas B. Hughmanick '51 Charles J. Meyers Ronnie L. Svaty '67• Terence M. Flynn '52 J. Sterling Hutcheson '49 • Frederick W. Mielke, Jr. '49 Paul W. Swinford '54Mr. and Mrs. Robert J. Foley James R. Hutter '50 Kendyl K. Monroe '60 Frank D. Tatum '50'49 Phillip D. Irwin '57 Peter Morrison'53 Waller Taylor II '50Del Fuller, Jr. '58 Darrell R. Johnson '69 Charles T. Munger Robert H. Thede '51James C. Gaither '64 Russell L. Johnson '58 Nancy Barry Munger, A.B. Warren R. Thoits '48Gregory M. Gallo Prof. John Kaplan '45 Clyde E. Tritt'49Jerome C. Muys '57 Hon. Richard E. Tuttle '49• Stephen C. Neal '73 Harlan K. Veal '50Allen L. Neelley, A.B. '58 Louis R. Vincenti '30Robert M. Newell '46 • Vincent M. Von Der Ahe '71LARGEST NUMBERS OFINNER QUAD MEMBERSElizabeth MarkhamHon. Nancy B. Watson, A.B.Nicholson '71 '47Philip T. Nicholson '69 Hon. Stanley A. Weigel '28John J. O'Connor III '53 Henry Wheeler '50Hon. Sandra Day O'Connor Andrew M. White '73Class No. Members '52 Douglas C. White '57• Richard S. Odom '69 George H. Whitney '391951 14 D. Ray Owen, Jr. '36 Charles R. Wichman '521949 12 Austin H. Peck, Jr. '38 Gary D. Wilson '681953 10 Alvin H. Pelavin '51 Bernard M. Wolfe '621955 9 Elaine T. Pelavin Beverly G. Wolfe1950 8 James H. Perkins '53 Hon. Donald R. Wright, A.B.1958 8 Colin M. Peters '47 '291952 7 Donald V. Petroni '58 Edwin M. Zimmerman1957 7 Donald E. Phillipson '68 Karl ZoBell '581971 7 Charles R. Purnell '491954 6 Carter Quinby '51 ( ) Indicates son's or daughter's1967 6 PaulA. Randour'60 class year.1969 6 Thomas J. Reilly '68 • New Inner Quad fellow8 Stanford Law Fund 1982

THE QUAD PROGRAMThe members of the Quad are alumni/ae and friends who give from $100 to$999 annually to Stanford Law School. The Law Fund Council designates asGeorge E. Crothers Fellows those individuals who contribute from $500 to$999; as Marion Rice Kirkwood Fellows those individuals who contributefrom $250 to $499; and as Law Quad Fellows those individuals who contributefrom $100 to $249.GEORGE E.CROTHERSFELLOWSChester R. Andrews '29Richard D. Andrews '56Lawrence A. Aufmuth '69Philip H. Bagley '37Peter D. Baird '66Sara Twaddle Baird '67Thomas B. Barnard '56John W. Bartman '67Douglas H. Barton '68Carlos T. Bea '58Everett H. Berberian'49Lazare F. Bernhard '32Susan W. Bird '74Stephen M. Blitz '66Roy C. Bonebrake '32Brian G. Booth '62Brooksley E. Born '64Larry C. Boyd '77Lawrence Bradley, Jr. '50Daniel L. Brenner '76Monte Bricker '63Albert L. Burford, Jr. '39Merlin W. Call '53James S. Campbell '64Jared G. Carter '62R. Frederick Caspersen '71Nicholas B. Clinch '55William J. Codiga '56Hon. John L. Cole '50Peggy Stern Cole'49Sterling D. Colton '53Michael A. Cornelius '67Ellen Barrie Coronswet '75John M. Cranston '32Theodore J. Cranston '64James S. Crown '80David L. Davies '27Wayne A. DaviesMrs. Jerome F. Donovan,A.B. '28Benjamin B. Dreyfus '38MichaelA. Duncheon '75Philip S. Ehrlich, Jr. '49Dennis B. Farrar '62John B. Fenner '51Bernard M. Filler '62David L. Fletcher'58James F. Fotenos '70Merrill R. Francis '59W. A. Franke '61George E. Frasier '68Floyd A. Fredrickson '51Malcolm H. Furbush '49David A. Gantz '67Robert Garcia '78Louise Hammer Ginsburg'68Allan S. Glikbarg '54Laurence K. Gould, Jr. '71Cameron R. Graham '68Robert N. Grant '72Jonathan H. Greenfield '71Mr. and Mrs. T. Gregory ('59)Douglas C. Gregg '33Prof. Gerald GuntherHon. Pauline Davis Hanson'46Stephen F. Harbison '68Don T. Hibner, Jr. '62Carolee G. Houser '68Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr., A.B.'35Harold J. Hunter, Jr. '60John B. Hurlbut, Jr. '64David L. Irons '64Oscar F. Irwin '54Randolph Jacobs '38Willard S. Johnston, A.B. '31Kenneth I. Jones '49Bernard C. Kearns '55Robert A. Keller III '58Prof. William T. Keogh '52Thomas C. Kildebeck '75Edmund T. King II '59Helga Leukert Kirst '71Roger W. Kirst '70Paul E. Kreutz '67Everett S. Layman, Jr. '53F. Jack Liebau '63David G. Luther '76MichaelT. Lyon '67Richard N. Mackay '49( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sclass year.1982 Stanford Law Fund9

Frank L. Mallory '47Richard C. Mallory '69Roderick P. Martinelli '52Patrick H. McGaraghan,A.B. '66Robert A. McNeil '48Michael D. Miller '75Peter P. Miller '68Walter G. Miller, A.B. '23Bruce T. Mitchell '51Marta MorandoR. Bruce Mosbacher '79Gustave A. Mueller '30James C. Muir, Jr. '65Kay Virginia Narver '77Laurel A. Nichols '72Martin P. O'Connell '70Richard S. Odom '69J. Dan Olincy '53Luther K. Orton '72Richard F. Outcault, Jr. '50Daryl H. Pearson '49Anthony R. Pierno '59Newman R. Porter '55Keith A. Pursel '58Charles W. Rees, Jr. '59William F. Rinehart '56Arthur C. RinskyJerry H. Robinson '60Alan S. Rosenberg, A.B. '49Jerald E. Rosenblum '60Stanford K. Rubin '61T. Newton Russell'43Robert T. RussellHon. Pamela A. Rymer '64Richard D. Sanders '48Suren M. Saroyan '29Diane W. SavageRoy J. Schmidt '66Sally A. Schreiber '76Laura Stern Seaver '75Patrick T. Seaver '76R. Carlton Seaver '75F. DeArmond Sharp '63Marsha E. Simms '77Fern Meyerson Smith '75Garrett K. Smith '73James C. Soper '53Charles B. Stark, Jr. '65George E. Stephens '62Archie M. Stevenson '29Louise A. Sunderland '73Keith E. Taylor '54Gerald S. Thede '52J. Richard Thesing '66Archie C. Thomas, Jr. '71Geoffrey L. Thomas, Jr. '70Robert R. Thompson '49Roger A. Vree '69James M. Wadsworth '64Mr. and Mrs.Harry L. Wallace ('78)Harry F. Wartnick '72Keene Watkins '34Alan Wayte '60Richard D. Wells '60Peter A. Whitman '68George V. Willoughby, Jr. '58MARION RICEKIRKWOODFELLOWSPhilip W. Aaron '59Richard C. Abbott '70Robert M. Adams, Jr. '40Lionel M. Allan '68Russell G. Allen '71Robert F. Ames '60Mark G. Ancel '50David H. Anderson '73George A. Andrews, Jr. '49Charles G. Armstrong '67George E. Baglin '36Carlos T. Bea '58Robert L. Beardslee, Jr. '29Stephen M. Blitz '66James M. Bonino '73Scott W. Bowen '72John F. Bradley '57F. M. Brosio, Jr. '57Laurence R. Brown '57John E. Bryson, A.B. '65Michael L. Burack '70Carl P. Burke '50Thomas R. Burke '67James T. Caleshu '65Jay A. Canel '55Merrill L. Carlsmith '30James L. Carpenter, Jr. '78Mrs. Rosemary R. CarrollRobert S. Cathcart'34Allan E. Charles '27Mr. and Mrs.Thomas C. Clarke ('75)Nicholas B. Clinch '55Nancy Mahoney Cohen '75Prof. William CohenDeborah Willard Coogan '71Mr. and Mrs.George W. Coombe, Jr.Hal L. Coskey '54Michael S. Courtnage '70Patrick R. Cowlishaw '76James G. Craig, Aff. '18Hon. Walter E. Craig '34John M. Cranston '32Roy E. Crawford III '63Roland C. Davis '36William C. Deans '60Philip A. DiMaria '38Brian T. Dolan '65Stanley A. Doten '64Barbara G. Dray '72Robert C. Elkus '47Andrew L. Faber '74Jesse Feldman'40Alfred G. Ferris '63Richard A. Fink '71EdWard A. Firestone '73Philip L. Fisher '67Raymond C. Fisher '66Robert F. Fisher '61James A. Flanagan '24George F. Flewelling '53Chandler Flickinger '57Prof. Marc A. FranklinKent F. Frates, A.B. '60Paul L. Freese '5710Stanford Law Fund 1982

Morton L. W. Friedman '56Robert T. Fries '72James M. Gansinger '70Hugh C. Gardner III '71Michael C. Gessford '66David A. Gill '61Jerome L. Goldberg '57Cornelius J. Golden, Jr.'73Gerson F. Goldsmith '47Hon. Richard S. Goldsmith'36Prof. Paul GoldsteinIsaac Goodman '57Joseph H. Gordon, Jr. '64Norman H. Gottlieb '50Robert R. Granucci '57Ronald M. Greenberg '64Allen B. Gresham '56Alvin D. Gress '70Lin H. Griffith '52Stephen L. Griffith '77Kaatri Boies Grigg '71Edwin V. Grundstrom '56Annie M. Gutierrez '71Harry L. Haehl '36Benjamin W. Hahn II '79JohnJ. Hannegan'48Dale E. Hanst '60Glenn S. Hara '71Thomas C. Harden '63Scott L. Harrington'51Daryl R. Hawkins '60C. Stephen Heard, Jr. '64Rex A. Heeseman '67J. Victor HerdPauline Hoffman Herd,A.B. '26Mortimer H. Herzstein '50Donald G. Hinkle '62Raymond B. Holbrook '31Nancy E. Howard '77Hon. Proctor R. Hug, Jr.'58Peter J. Hughes '53Douglas B. Hughmanick'51John M. Huntington '58Thomas C. Ingledue '61James B. Irsfeld, Jr., A.B.'33Bonnie Gelb Jackson '81Prof. Thomas JacksonDaniel C. Jacobson '77John P. Jennings '32Robert M. Johnson '73William P. Johnson '67Dr. Joseph M. Jones '58John D. Jorgenson '50Charles J. Judson '69Hon. M. Peter Katsufrakis'58Allen M. Katz '72Donald E. Kelley, Jr. '73Steven C. Kenninger '77Monroe W. Kirkman '52Andrew B. Kjos '59Lloyd S. Kurtz, Jr. '59Hon. William J. Lasarow'50R. P. Lavenant, Jr. '49Edward S. Lebowitz '65Catherine Lockridge Lee'53R. Allan Leedy, Jr. '67David K. Lelewer '66Arthur J. Lempert '52Edward M. Leonard '71Charles F. Lettow '68Marilyn Epstein Levine '75Norman H. Levine '74S. Rex Lewis'49Hon. John A. Loomis '38David C. Loring '67Edgar A. Luce, Jr. '48Leonard B. Mackey, Jr.'75Stanley J. Madden '35Charles F. Mansfield '68Gerald D. Marcus, A.B.'38Gerald Z. Marer '63John S. Mason, Jr. '68Robert T. Mautz '64Assoc. Dean Thomas F.McBrideHarry R. McPike '63Patrick J. McGaraghan,A.B. '66George E. McGill '59Peter P. Miller '68Robert J. Miller '60Roy D. Miller '54Wayne K. Minami '67Patrick H. Mitchell '69William R. Mitchell '47Charles E. Montgomery '51Michael M. Moore '67Hon. Patrick J. Morris '62Charles L. Mullen '53LeRoy J. Neider '65William A. Neumann '68Luis Nogales '69George H. Norton '57Dr. and Mrs.Richard B. OglesbyJay I. Olnek '55Hon. Lester E. Olson '53Maj. Gen. Harold E.Parker '51William R. Ouderkirk '28Harry D. Palmer '67B. H. Parkinson, Jr. '49D. Monte Pascoe '60Robert E. Patterson '72Jack Paul '52William R. Pedder '67Louis S. Penfield '36 .,Paul F. Perret '75Alan B. Pick '70Robert A. Prior'49Ralph C. Raddue, Aff. '38Richard E. Rader '63Edward S. Renwick '58Lynn S. Richards '29Robert R. Rickett '67Peter H. Rodgers '72Charles L. Rogers '57Michael Roster '70Barbara Doyle Roupe '76Edwin M. Rosendahl '49Miles L. Rubin '52John F. Runner '48John J. Sabl '76Darrell L. Sackl '73MichaelS. Sands '62Hon. Albert F.Scheidecker '30Carl R. Schenker, Jr. '74Richard B. Schreiber '68Irwin H. Schwartz '71A. Timothy Scott '77Ernest Y. Sevier '56Marvin S. Siegel '61John E. Sloan '60Meredith K. Smith, A.B. '30Richard E. Sobelle '60Hon. Gus J. Solomon '29Daniel R. Spangler '68Andrew M. Spears '39John K. Stewart '64Hon. Frederick E. Stone '33George S. Swarth '37Marshall H. Tanick '71Frederick G. Tellam '54Mrs. Joann ThompsonMrs. Veronica S. Tincher,B.S. '52Lawrence H. Title '70( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sclass year.1982 Stanford Law Fund11

Ronald G. Trayner '67Anthony J. Trepel '61Paul C. Valentine '61George L. Vargas '34Dennis H. Vaughn '57Robert R. Vayssie '56James F. Vernon '75Donald B. Webster'49John D. Webster '49Hugh N. Wells III '61John F. Wells '52Robert D. Wenzel '59Christopher A. Westover'68Rand N. White '76Richard C. White '62Mrs. Barry Whitehead,A.B. '35David B. Whitehead '71Hon. Miriam E. Wolff '39Robert R. Wulff '54Dr. Robert J. Wyatt,A.B. '65Kirt F. Zeigler '63Harvey L. Ziff '67LAW QUADFELLOWSJohn G. Abbott '69Richard C. Abbott '70Hon. Seymour J. Abrahams'56R. Winfield Achor '48Edgar D. Ackerman '69Terrance M. Adlhock '72John W. Alden '59Gerald B. Ames '61Mr. and Mrs. James B. AmesRichard C. Amick '52Steven G. Amundson '76Anthony J. Anastasi '40Lage E. Andersen '77Allan C. Anderson '67Edward V. Anderson '78James E. Anderson, Jr. '72t Lau rei E. Anderson '16Percy L. Angelo '70Simon D. Anixter '31Robert M. Arhelger '68Brewster L. Arms'51Michael E. Arthur '77James R. Atwood '69Alan K. Austin '74Luther J. Avery '53Prof. Barbara A. BabcockHon. Joseph G. Babich,Aff. '51William J. Baer '75Dean A. Bailey '52James R. Baird, Jr. '53Prof. Douglas G. Baird '79D. Cameron Baker, Jr.,A.B. '58Merlin W. Baker '49Sheldon S. Baker '61Robert D. Bartels '69Joseph W. Bartlett II '60John R. Baumann '71Gary G. Bayer '67Geoffrey C. Beaumont '65Daniel R. Bedford '70Elmer F. Bennett'41James H. Bennett '62Gilbert C. Berkeley, Jr. '70Jay S. Berlinsky '69Eric C. Berson '75Karl H. Bertelsen '63Thomas E. Bertelsen, Jr. '65Stuart I. Berton '64Gloria Midgely Beutler '44Bruce A. Bevan, Jr. '52Peter D. Bewley '71James T. Bialson '68Philip Biddison, A.B. '25Mark W. Blackman '77Robert N. Blewett '39Leroy Bobbitt '69George E. Bodle '33Lola J. Bohn '75James B. Bolen, Jr. '52Norman I. Book '64Russell L. Boraas, Jr. '69John P. Borgwardt '54William S. Boyd, Jr. '41William S. Boyd, '71Peter C. Bradford '60David S. Bradshaw '69Hon. Edward L. Brady '48Coleman Bresee '67Rudi M. Brewster '60Bonnie S. Brier '76Laurence K. Brown '57Marion L. Brown '67Stephen D. Brown '39Beverly Rutman Budin '69Ingall W. Bull, Jr. '50John W. Buoymaster '77Joseph W. Burdett '65Charles W. Burkett '39Lewis H. Butler '51Edward L. Butterworth '39Donald L. Buxton '69Lawrence Calof '69George B. Campbell'41Scott I. Canel '80Fred Caploe '59Bertram W. Carp '68James L. Carpenter, Jr. '78Daniel A. Carrell '68Bruce D. Carter '68Richard Carver'57Timothy R. Casgar '67Thomas B. Catron III '50Jack G. Charney '71Martin J. Cerullo '81J. Anthony Chavez'81Samuel D. Cheris '71Ozro W. Childs IV '69Donald S. Chisum '68Melva D. Christian '77Hon. Frank Church '50W. Edward Chynoweth '63David A. Clarke '75Sterling S. Clayton '53RO~'ert C. Clifford '51Ed in R. Cline '64Ro ert P. Cochran '74Sa41Cohen '53Lawrence M. Cohn '66Edmond M. Connor '75Joseph E. Cook '52Hon. Lyle E. Cook '32Quentin L. Cook '66Ransom S. Cook '59MichaeIS.Courtnage'70Kenneth G. Coveney '72Patrick R. Cowlishaw '76Francis R. Crable '36Mary B. Cranston '75Thomas A. Craven '66Fred V. Cummings '52James R. Cunha '49Lloyd N. Cutler '77Michael E. Cutler '81Raymond J. Daba '40James T. Danaher III '58Alden E. Danner '65Howard M. Daschbach '50Hon. Leon T. David '26Michael D. David '47Sherrod S. Davis'51Daryl C. Dawson '62Gary T. Day '72James J. DeLong '71George V. Denny III '58Dixon Q. Dern '53George I. Devor, A.B. '22Asst. Dean Victoria S.Diaz '75A. Hale Dinsmoor '28Stephen D. Docter'59Janine M. Dolezel '71Hon Victor E. Donatelli '53t Deceased12Stanford Law Fund 1982

Harry C. Donkers '61Joseph K. Donohue '74William A. Dorland '66Steven L. Dorsey'73Richard D. Dreyfus '63John H. Dudley, Jr. '66Leslie N. Duryea II '50Mark R. Dushman '73Gregory C. Dyer '71Jonathan C. Eaton, Jr. '52Jerome E. Eggers '72Hon. Norbert Ehrenfreund'59Ralph Ehrenpreis '67Theodore J. Elias '30Prof. Robert E. EllicksonJ. Randolph Elliott '51Robert W. Elliott'49David Elson '70John P. Emert '67Robert A. Emmett III '68James C. Engdahl'43William G. Eustice '48Howard D. Fabrick '62James C. Falconer '70Terrance L. Farina '63Donald A. Farmer, Jr. '69Douglas P. Ferguson '63Ricardo B. Ferrari '68Frederick S. Fields '64Nathan C. Finch '34Jack D. Fine '56John E. Finney '68Michael R. Flicker '65Thomas J. Foley '51Douglas E. Forrest '76Ted R. Frame '52Richard A. Frank '37Prof. Carl M. Franklin, A.M.'35Maxwell M. Freeman '60Alan E. Friedman '70Arthur J. Fritz, Jr. '65Harold H. Fulkerson '40Philip G. Fullerton '56James M. Gansinger '70David A. Gantz '67Walter W. Garnsey, Jr. '70Don J. Gelber '63John L. Genung '70William W. Gilbert '45Joseph A. Giordano '56Leonard A. Girard '67Raymond Glickman '65William W. Glenny '48David A. Goldfarb '67Dennis B. Goldstein '70Richard E. Good '52Jimmy K. Goodman '71Brenton F. Goodrich '67Hon. Charles Gordon '57Joseph H. Gordon, A.B. '31James K. Gorham '78Theodore W. Graham '63Brooke Grant '60Gary W. Grant '69Burl L. Green '48Prof. Thomas C. GreyHon. Thomas P. Griesa '58Kenneth G. Griffin '64John R. Griffiths '60Keith C. Groen '67George Grossman '66Victoria M. Gruver '81Richard E. Gutting, A.B. '37('68)Robert M. Haddock '71W. 'Michael Hafferty '74Arnold B. Haims '59H. Robert Hall '64Paul M. Hamerly '48John J. Hamlyn, Jr. '61Gordon F. Hampton '35Graeme E. Hancock '80James L. Hand '81Deborah Koss Handel '73Bruce G. Hanson '65Michael J. Harbers '69Harlan F. Harmsen '56Richard K. Harray '67John H. Harriman '49Harvey E. Harrison '77Albert M. Hart '47John R. Hassen '65Thomas E. Haven '48William B. Hawfield, Jr. '72Thomas H. Hawley '69Clifford B. Hendler '78Nancy Howell Hendry '75Albert T. Henley'41Arthur A. Henzell '53Victor H. Hexter II '52Helaine Wachs Heydemann'71David B. Heyler, Jr. '51William A. Hillhouse II '64William Hillyer '41Rena Ellis Hines '59Mrs. Frederick E. Hines,A.B. '29, A.M. '30William H. Hippee, Jr. '72Joseph W. Hodges, Jr. '49Morgan D. Hodgson '73Philip W. Hoffman '71Robert B. Hoffman '70William P. Hoffman, Jr. '69Michael G. Holmes '60Zachary I. Horowitz '78W. Conrad Hoskins '64Lynn O. Hossom '30Douglas G. Houser '60Tom K. Houston '72L. Francis Huck '72Michael H. Hudnall '68LeRoy L. Hunt '27Hon. Harry L. Hupp '55Robert E. Hurley '60Laurence J. Hutt '75Walter H. Ikeda '68William P. Irwin '53Jonathan D. Iten '81Donald A. Jackson '62David S. Jacobson '34Michael R.Jacobson '80Oliver M. Jamison '41Clayton R. Janssen, Jr. '51Donald B. Jarvis '52Martin J. Jarvis '47Douglas B. Jensen '67Calvin H. Johnson '71Craig W. Johnson '74Oliver T. Johnson, Jr. '71Robert K. Johnson '641982 Stanford Law Fund13

Walter A. Johnson, A.B. '29 Maxine H. Linde '67 Lincoln A. Mitchell '62 Douglas M. Ragen '67Hon. Wilbur R. Johnson '54 James P. Lindsay '63 Prof. Robert H. Mnookin Merrill S. Randol '73Robert P. Johnston '73 James E. Linneman '59 Beverly Ottem Mohr '46 Richard N. Rapoport '58Charles F. Jonas '39 Andrew L. Lipps '74 James R. Moore '56 William K. Rasmussen '48Robert L. Jones '78 Samuel M. Livermore '78 Albert J. Moorman Eugene B. Rauen '55Robert M. Jones '40 James D. Loebl '52 Marvin D. Morgenstein '55 Stephan M. Ray '79Donald W. Jordan '32 Ben H. Logan III '76 Richard L. Morningstar '70 Charles W. Rees, Jr. '59Sam Joseph '30 John E. Loomis'49 Peter C. Morris'51 Francesca Gardner ReeseProf. Craig Joyce '75 Mr. and Mrs. Donald W. Morrison '50 '65Arnold L. Kahn '33 Michael J. Lotito Paul W. Mouser'48 John R. Reese '65Alan S. Kamin '66 Hon. Mack P. Lovett '55 Mary Reclief Mulcahy '36 William J. Renton '67Kenneth M. Kaplan '72 Henry W. Low '36 David M. Munro '66 Edward S. Renwick '58J. Kenneth Kaseberg '30 Remington M. Low '39 Hon. Paul I. Myers Prof. Deborah RhodeJoseph W. Kegler '49 Lloyd W. Lowrey, Jr. '71 R. Chandler Myers '58 Dean Sorenson Rhodes '57William B. Keleher '58 Ronald S. Luedemann '64 Hon. David N. Naugle '69 Richard W. Rhodes '52Edgar C. Keller'49 Hon. Stephen W. Luelf '67 Ralph C. Navarro '74 Hon. Philip H. Richards '21Elwood S. Kendrick George H. N. Luhrs, Jr. '20 Richard H. Nichols '63 Hon. Frank K. RichardsonJohn W. Kennedy, Jr. '63 David A. Lush '49 Donald E. 'Nicol '66 '38Edmund H. Kerr '51 William Lyons '34 Douglas B. Noble '67 George B. Richardson '72Charles W. Key '59 Janet Gertmenian Alan S. Nopar '79 Pamela Miller Ridley '79Sandford B. King-Smith '66 MacFarlane '63 Hon. William A. Norris '54 Robert H. Rinn '27Roger M. Kirkpatrick '67 John D. MacFarlane '62 James E. O'Brien John S. Riper '80Jay S. Kittle '66 William P. MacGr~gor '70 Thomas J. O'Keefe '61 Emmet L. Rittenhouse '35Joel N. Klevens '69 Julius Mackson '23 George E. Olmstead '66 Hon. James F. Roach '48Henry J. Klinker '68 Stanley J. Madden '35 Robert E. Ordal '73 James C. Roberton '69William F. Knapp '26 Gasper J. Magarian '25 Peter R. Osinoff '76 Gary R. Roberts '75Franklin L. Knox, Jr. '32 Ellen Maldonado '78 Michael S. Ostrach '76 t Weymouth M. Roberts' 18Hans H. Koehl '59 James R. Malott, Jr. '41 Hon. Claude M. Owens '40 Earl M. Robins '33Bart Koeppen '62 Kenneth R. Malovos '33 Fredericka Paff '69 David K. Robinson'46Hon. Thomas Kongsgaard Richard D. Maltzman '59 Charles H. Page '58 James H. Robinson '49'49 Bayless Manning, H'71 Russell R. Palmer, Jr. '64 Daniel B. Rosenbaum '68Lorrain Streblow J. Markham Marshall '66 Victor H. Palmieri '54 Edward A. Rosenberg'48Kongsgaard '47 Elton F. Martin'50 Carolyn Carter Paris '78 Bruce A. Rosenfield '76James D. Kowal '59 Tally P. Mastrangelo '52 Jonathan S. Paris '78 Elizabeth Spilman RosenfieldLeslie M. Kratter '72 James R. Maurer '53 William B. Patrick '65 '24John A. Kussmaul '67 James R. Mazzoni, Jr. '56 Richard A. Paul '73 Gordon A. Rosenmeier '32Seymour G. Laff ('77) John B. McCobb, Jr. '66 Harvey D. Pease '35 Michael R. Rosiello '76William T. Lake '68 Allan H. McCurdy '34 Hon. Robert F. Peckham '45 Chester E. Ross '28Louise A. LaMothe '71 Hon. F. Douglas McDaniel Stuart T. Peeler '53 Andrew E. Rubin '74Edward D. Landels '24 '48 Ralph B. Perry III '63 Stephen S. Rudd '70Christine M. Langenfeld '80 Douglas B. McDonald '47 Howard M. Peters, Ph.D. '67 Edmund P. Russo '50Ross L. Laybourn '74 John R. McDonough Carol M. Petersen '66 Jack Ryersen '50Richard B. Leavitt '60 Steve A. McKeon '71 C. Francis Petit, A.B. '31 Paul L. Saffo III '80Ayleen Ito Lee'81 Thomas W. McKinsey '50 Alan S. Pfeffer'80 Charles P. Sainsbury '68Marjorie Mize LeGaye '45 Duncan A. McLeod, Jr. '48 George R. Pfeiffer'49 John M. Salmanowitz '78Lynn W. Lehmann '68 George M. McLeod '46 Louis L. Phelps '36 Stephen L. Samuels '77Richard Y. LeMaster '63 John A. Meschke '61 Prof. Sidney I. Picker, Jr. '59 Hon. Robert P. SchiffermanRichard S. Levenberg '62 Joan Heimbigner Meyer '71 Charles D. Porter '55 '51Alan M. Levenstein '68 Myrl A. Meyer '53 Charles F. Preuss '69Sanford V. Levinson '73 Ronald K. Meyer '76 Hobert Price, Jr. '55Thomas W. Levitt '77' Charles J. Miller, Jr. '52 Ted W. Prim '72 t DeceasedRobert J. Lewis '53 Fred B. Miller '65 Marc A. Primack '77 ( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sDonald J. Licker '55 James M. Mitchell '55 James A. Quinby '21 class year.14 Stanford Law Fund 1982

Elizabeth MacMillanSchmidt '78Ernest W. Schmidt '52Gregory M. Schmidt '76Dr. George F. Schnack,A.B. '39Arthur P. Schneider, Jr. '73Glen W. Schofield '69William A. Schulte '71Christopher T. Seaver '78James V. Selna '70Leon E. Seltzer '74J. Jay Shapiro '53J. Peter Shapiro '74Walter T. Shatford II '47Thomas R. Shearer, Jr. '61George E. Shibley '34Thomas L. Shillinglaw '71Randal B. Short '70John D. Shyer '81Arnold I. Siegel '70Charles D. Siegel '75William E. Siegert '51Mrs. Renee B. Simon,M.S. '49J. Calvin Simpson '52Jean Morris Simpson '50Robert P. Simpson'49John B. Sines, A.B. '69Elmer J. Sjostrom '42Stephen H. Siabach '61Nancy E. Smith '73Philip G. Smith '24Phillip K. Smith, Jr. '70Hon. Joseph T. SneedJames H. Snell '27William N. Snell '40James L. Sobieski '60John G. Sobieski '30John R. Sorbo '49Jerry G. South '58Prof. and Mrs. Carl B. SpaethJay M. Spears '76Kristi Cotton Spence'81Robert L. Spence, B.S. '63Victoria Sperry '78Blakeney Stafford '67Richard J. Stall, Jr. '66Harry R. Stang '62Ann M. Stanton '75Richard C. Stanton'51William W. Stark, Jr. '66Harward A. Stearns '56Richard R. St. Johns '54Hon. Charles C. Stratton '28Kim Street '72Peter H. Strong '75Thomas E. Stuen '74Hon. John A. H. Sturgeon,A.B. '20Stephen H. Suffin '56Stephen G. Sussman '69Thomas R. Suttner '34ReuelR.Sutton '33Prof. Peter N. Swan '61John B. Swarbrick '80John J. Sweeney '71Charles L. Swezey'48Katsuhiko Takaike '80Prof. Anthony D. Tarlock '65Russell E. Teasdale '58Leonard M. Telleen '72Joseph E. Terraciano '71Douglas G. Thompson, Jr.'69Eckhart A. Thompson '38Timothy Tomlinson '76David B. Toy '60Mrs. Carol C. Treanor,A.B. '62James F. Tune '74Robert H. Stephens '62Robert C. Stetson '58Robert M. Stern '69Robert J. Tyler '62Col. Julius C. Ullerich, Jr. '54Stephen L. Urbanczyk'74Virgil V. Vale, Jr. '48Eric W. Valentine '61Paul C. Valentine '61Paul B. Van Buren '64John K. Van de Kamp '59David M. Van Hoesen '58Peter Van Petten '80Gyte VanZyl '55Arthur E. Varden, Jr. '60S. Gary VargaMarc B. Victor '75Hon. Betty MorrisonVitousek '48Roy A. Vitousek, Jr. '48Adam von Dioszeghy '70Charles E. Ward'46Susan Stoll Ware '72W. James Ware '72Michiro Watanabe '38George B. Weiksner Jr. '70Sandra Smiley Weiksner '69Laurence M. Weinberg '33Richard P. Weldon '53Mary Beth West '72W. Richard West, Jr. '71J. Patrick Whaley '59Malcolm E. Wheeler '69Eben Whittlesey '40Robert E. Wickersham'42Philip H. Wile '57Herbert F. Wilkinson '70Emerson C. Willey '30Stephen A. Williams '78Thomas K. Williams '73Prof. Howard R. WilliamsKathryn L. Wilson '72A. Emory Wishon III '80Kenneth E. Witt '79Gerald G. Wolfson '51Hon. Delbert E. Wong '48William G. Woods, M.A. '63David L. Worrell '70Andrew W. Wright '71Kenneth B. Wright '60Richard J. Wylie '58Jeffery L. Yablon '73Archer W. Zamloch, Jr. '40Ralph A. Zarefsky '76Harvey L. Ziff '671982 Stanford Law Fund15

DONORS TO THE LAW FUND• Hon. Murray DraperTheodore J. EliasLynn O. HossonSam JosephJ. Kenneth KasebergGustave A. MuellerHon. Albert ScheideckerJohn G. Sobieski• Louis R. VincentiDrummond WildeEmerson C. WilleyCLASS OF 193'1Simon D. Anixter• Hon. Ben. C. DuniwayRaymond B. Holbrook• Rex W. KramerFrank C. Lerrigo• William C. SteinTheodore M. SwettCLASS OF 1916 CLASS OF 1924 CLASS OF 1928t Laurel E. Anderson James A. Flanagan Leighton M. Bledsoe• Frank W. Fuller, Jr.Gregory H. DavisCLASS OF 1917 Edward D. Landels A. Hale Dinsmoort Irwin E. Farrar Elizabeth Spilman Harold G. KingRosenfieldWilliam R. OuderkirkCLASS OF 1918 Philip G. Smith Chester E. RossJames G. Craig CLASS OF 1925t Weymouth M. RobertsChristine Murdoch GobleHon. Charles C. Stratton• Hon. Stanley A. WeigelGasper H. Magarian CLASS OF 1929CLASS OF 1920Chester R. AndrewsHon. Edward Henderson CLASS OF 1926 Robert L. Beardslee, Jr.George H. N. Luhrs, Jr.CLASS OF 1921James A. QuinbyHon. Leon T. David• Northcutt ElyWilliam F. KnappJohn A. LeiterHon. Rhoda V. Lewis• Lawrence M. Linneman• Robert E. ParadiseHon. Philip H. Richards CLASS OF 1927 Lynn S. RichardsCLASS OF 1922Allan E. CharlesSuren M. SaroyanDavid L. DaviesHon. Gus J. SolomonGeorge I. Devor Lewis A. Gibbons Archie M. StevensonCLASS OF 1923John C. McHoseRobert P. MyersCLASS OF 1930Julius Mackson Robert H. Rinn Merrill L. CarlsmithHon. Homer W. Patterson James H. Snell Wallace D. CathcartCLASS OF 1932Lazare F. BernhardRoy C. Bonebrake• Hon. Richard H. ChambersJohn M. CranstonJohn P. JenningsDonald W. JordanFranklin L. Knox, Jr.John B. LauritzenJohn F. O'DonnellA. Gordon RosenmeierCLASS OF 1933George E. BodleWalter J. Desmond, Jr.Hon. Victor E. DonatelliHon. Charles M. Fox, Jr.Douglas C. GreggMarvin HandlerArnold L. KahnKenneth R. MalovosEarl M. Robins• Charles StearnsEdgar B. StewartHon. Frederick E. StoneReuel R. SuttonLaurence M. Weinbergt Deceased• Inner Quad member16Stanford Law Fund 1982

CLASS OF 1934Robert S. CathcartHon. Walter E. CraigAlbert L. DenneyNathan C. FinchW. Donald FletcherEdwin L. GerhartDavid S. JacobsonH. Donald KistlerWilliam LyonsAllan H. McCurdy• Lester S. McElwainBertram McLees, Jr.George E. ShibleyWadieh S. ShibleyThomas R. SuttnerGeorge L. VargasKeene WatkinsCLASS OF 1935Edgar A. Boyles, Jr.• S. K. LindenStanley J. MaddenHarvey D. PeaseEmmet L. RittenhouseCLASS OF 1936George E. BaglinFrancis R. Crable• Vincent CullinanRoland C. DavisJohn F. DowneyHen. Richard S. GoldsmithHarry L. HaehlHenry W. LowMary Reclief Mulcahy• D. Ray Owen, Jr.Louis S. PenfieldLouis L. PhelpsAdele Langston RogersHan. Bruce R. ThompsonCLASS OF 1937Philip H. BagleyRichard A. Frank• Joseph T. Melczer, Jr.W.illiam H. Peterson• Keith L. StahleGeorge S. SwarthCLASS OF 1938• Aylett B. CottonPhilip A. DiMariaRichard J. DolwigBenjamin B. DreyfusRandolph JacobsBoris H. LakustaHon. John A. Loomis• Austin H. Peck, Jr.Ralph C. RaddueHan. Frank K. RichardsonEckhart A. ThompsonMichiro WatanabeCLASS OF 1939Robert N. BlewettPhilip J. BradyStephen D. BrownAlbert L. Burford, Jr.Charles W. BurkettEdward L. ButterworthLeonard D. JamesCharles F. JonasRemington M. LowAndrew M. SpearsRay T. Sullivan, Jr.Hon. James C. Toothaker• George H. WhitneyAdrian L. Wilbur, Jr.Hon. Miriam E. WolffCLASS OF 1940Robert M. Adams, Jr.Anthony J. AnastasiRaymond J. DabaJesse FeldmanHon. Charles S. FranichHarold H. FulkersonRobert M. JonesHon. Claude M. OwensWilliam N. SnellNorman A. StonerHarrison M. WalkerEben WhittleseyEarle R. WilliamsArcher W. Zamloch, Jr.CLASS OF 1941Elmer F. BennettWilliam S. Boyd, Jr.George B. CampbellAlbert T. HenleyWilliam HillyerCharles F. Hutchins, Jr.Oliver M. JamisonJames R. Malott, Jr.Herbert D. NewellCLASS OF 1942• John W. BroadRobert B. CurtissElmer J. SjostromRobert E. WickershamCLASS OF 1943James C. EngdahlT. Newton RussellCLASS OF 1944Gloria Midgely Beutler• Artemus W. Ham, Jr.CLASS OF 1945William W. GilbertFrancis A. GuidoMarjorie Mize LeGayeHon. Robert F. PeckhamCLASS OF 1946Hon. Pauline Davis HansonGeorge M. McLeodBeverly Ottem Mohr• Robert M. NewellDavid K. RobinsonCharles E. WardCLASS OF 1947• James J. BakerHon. William Biddick, Jr.Michael D. DavidRobert C. ElkusGerson F. GoldsmithAlbert M. HartMartin J. JarvisLorraine StreblowKongsgaardFrank L. MalloryDouglas B. McDonaldWilliam R. Mitchell• Colin M. PetersWalter T. Shatford IIRobert W. SinaiJohn P. WilsonHon. Joseph G. Wilson• Inner Quad member1982 Stanford Law Fund17

CLASS OF 1948R. Winfield AchorHon. Edward L. BradyHon. Dorothy Myers CarsonHon. William M. Dale, Jr.William G. EusticeRolla L. Garretson, Jr.William W. GlennyBurl L. GreenPaul M. HamerlyJohn J. Hannegan• John L. Hauer• Thomas E. HavenEdgar A. Luce, Jr.Duncan A. McLeod, Jr.Robert A. McNeil• James T. MortonPaul W. MouserPhilip J. O'DonnellCol. H. M. PeytonLouise C. PowellWilliam K. RasmussenHon. James F. RoachEdward A. RosenbergJohn F. RunnerWard B. Saunders, Jr.Jeanne Smith Stewart• David J. StoneCharles L. Swezey• Warren R. ThoitsVirgil V. Vale, Jr.Hon. Betty MorrisonVitousekRoy A. Vitousek, Jr.Ray H. Whitaker, Jr.Hon. Delbert E. WongCLASS OF 1949• Martin AndersonGeorge A. Andrews, Jr.Merlin W. BakerEverett H. Berberian• Warren Christopher• Everett B. ClaryPeggy Stern ColeJames R. CunhaPhilip S. Ehrlich, Jr.Robert W. Elliott• Robert J. FoleyMalcolm H. Furbush• Richard G. HahnFrank L. HannigJohn H. Harriman• George M. HenzieJoseph W. Hodges, Jr.• J. Sterling HutchesonKenneth I. Jones, Jr.Joseph W. KeglerEdgar C. KellerHon. Thomas KongsgaardR. P. Lavenant, Jr.S. Rex LewisJohn E. LoomisDavid A. LushRichard N. MackayFrancis J. Mackey• Darrell P. McCrory• Frederick W. Mielke, Jr.Theodore M. NortonB. H. Parkinson, Jr.Roland M. PaulsonDaryl H. PearsonRobert W. PendergrassGeorge R. PfeifferRobert A. Prior• Charles R. PurnellJames H. RobinsonRobert P. SimpsonJohn R. SorboRobert R. Thompson• Clyde E. Tritt• Hon. Richard E. TuttleDonald B. WebsterJohn D. WebsterCharles C. Woodard, Jr.CLASS OF 1950Mark G. AncelLawrence Bradley, Jr.Ingall W. Bull, Jr.Carl P. BurkeThomas B. Catron IIIFrank ChurchHon. John L. ColeHoward M. DaschbachLeslie N. Duryea IILedger D. FreeFrancis J. Gavin, Jr.Norman H. GottliebMortimer H. Herzstein• James R. HutterJohn D. JorgensonBeatrice Gliksberg KushnerWilliam J. LasarowElton F. MartinThomas W. McKinseyDonald W. MorrisonRichard F. Outcault, Jr.• Karl S. PricePhyllis Sutherland ProppeEdmund P. Russo• G. Williams RutherfordJack RyersenHon. Harmon G. Scoville• Barton C. Sheela, Jr.Jean Morris Simpson• Frank D. Tatum, Jr.• Waller Taylor II• Harlan K. Veal• Henry WheelerCLASS OF 1951Howard P. AllenBrewster L. ArmsHon. Joseph G. BabichEzekiel Booth, Jr.Lewis H. Butler• S. C. ChillingworthRobert C. Clifford• William B. CollisterSherrod S. DavisJ. Randolph ElliottJohn B. FennerThomas J. FoleyFloyd A. FredricksonScott L. Harrington• David B. Heyler, Jr.• Albert J. Horn• Ellis J. Horvitz• Douglas B. HughmanickClayton R. Janssen, Jr.• Edmund H. KerrWilliam Leiter• Lloyd W. MasonDennis McCarthyBruce T. MitchellCharles E. MontgomeryPeter C. MorrisMaj. Gen. Harold E. Parker• Alvin H. Pelavin• Carter Quinby• Norman B. RichardsRichard D. SandersHon. Robert P. Schifferman• Hugh Shearer IIIWilliam E. Siegert• Marshall L. SmallRichard C. Stanton• Irving Sulmeyer• Robert H. ThedeRobert O. WilhelmGerald G. WolfsonCLASS OF 1952Richard C. AmickDean A. BaileyBruce A. Bevan, Jr.James B. Bolen, Jr.• Anthony P. Brown• Philip E. BrownJoseph E. CookFred V. Cummings• Charles C. Dietrich• George R. DotyJonathan C. Eaton, Jr.Terence M. FlynnTed R. FrameRichard E. GoodLin H. GriffithLouis A. HarrisVictor H. Hexter IIHon. W. R. Hollingsworth, Jr.Donald B. JarvisWilliam P. KeatsWilliam T. KeoghMonroe W. KirkmanBeatrice Challiss LawsArthur J. LempertJames D. LoeblR. P. MartinelliTally P. MastrangeloBruce G. McGregorCharles J. Miller, Jr.• Hon. Sandra Day O'ConnorRose OliverJack Paul• Inner Quad member18Stanford Law Fund 1982

Hon. Richard W. RhodesMiles L. RubinErnest W. Schmidt• George A. SearsJ. Calvin SimpsonHerbert S. Smith• Glen E. StephensGerald S. ThedeJohn F. WellsRobert D. Wenzel• Charles R. WichmanCLASS OF 1953Luther J. AveryJames R. Baird, Jr.Richard M. Blois• Jerome I. BraunRichard W. BridgesMerlin W. CallSterling S. ClaytonSaul CohenSterling D. Colton• James F. Crafts, Jr.Dixon Q. Dern• G. Edward FitzgeraldGeorge F. Flewelling• Lee A. HansenArthur A. HenzellPeter J. HughesWilliam P. IrwinEverett S. Layman, Jr.Catherine Lockridge Lee• Victor B. LevitRobert J. LewisJames R. MaurerMyrl A. MeyerJohn D. Miller• Peter MorrisonCharles S. Mullen• John J. O'Connor IIIJ. Dan OlincyHon. Lester E. OlsonStuart T. Peeler• James H. PerkinsJ. Jay Shapi roJames C. SoperRichard P. WeldonAudrey Shroyer WoodwardCLASS OF 1954• Stephen BarnettJohn P. BorgwardtWilliam H. Cook, Jr.Hal L. Coskey• Frank E. FarellaAllan S. Glikbarg• Victor Goehring• Hon. Cynthia Holcomb HallOscar F. IrwinHon. Wilbur R. Johnson• Charles A. LeggeRoy D. MillerHon. William A. NorrisStanley R. NortonChalmers W. Smith• Richard B. SnellRichard R. S1. Johns• Paul W. SwinfordKeith E. TaylorFrederick G. TellamCol. J. C. Ullerich, Jr.Robert R. WulffCLASS OF 1955Jay A. CanelNicholas B. Clinch• Richard D. DeLuceDavid Freeman• Del Fuller, Jr.• Roderick M. Hills• Philip J. HudnerHon. Harry L. HuppWillis W. Jourdan, Jr.Bernard C. Kearns• Herbert KrausDonald J. LickerHon. Mack P. Lovett• Walter P. LukensJames M. MitchellMarvin D. MorgensteinArnold OinonenJay I. OlnekCharles D. PorterNewman R. PorterHobert Price, Jr.Eugene B. Rauen• Justin M. Roach, Jr.Donald Rosenberg• Myrl R. Scott• Charles D. SilverbergGyte VanZylRobert I. WorthCLASS OF 1956Hon. Seymour J. Abrahams• William H. AllenRichard D. Andrews• John W. Armagost• John F. BankerB. Thomas BarnardWayne A. BrooksWilliam J. CodigaJack D. FineMarshall L. Foreman, Jr.Morton L. W. FriedmanPhilip C. FullertonJoseph A. Giordano• Leonard A. GoldmanAllen B. GreshamEdwin V. GrundstromHarlan F. HarmsenCharles E. Luckhardt, Jr.James R. Mazzoni, Jr.James R. MooreWilliam F. RinehartErnest Y. SevierHarward A. StearnsStephen H. SuffinRobert R. VayssieCLASS OF 1957Robert A. AnthonyJohn F. BradleyF. M. Brosio, Jr.Laurence K. Brown• Richard CarverHon. William H. EllisChandler FlickingerPaul L. Freese• Jerome L. GoldbergIsaac GoodmanHon. Charles GordonRobert R. Granucci• John F. Hopkins• Philip D. Irwin• Jerome C. MuysGeorge H. NortonJames R. RenfroeDean Soreflson RhodesCharles L. Rogers• Ronald S. RosenDennis H. VaughnHon. Philip M. Saeta• Douglas C. WhitePhilip H. WileCLASS OF 1958Carlos T. BeaHon. Iryne Codon Black• Guy BlaseHon. Walter P. CapaccioliGeorge M. Carr• Donald W. CrockerJames T. Danaher III• Mark L. DeesGeorge V. Denny III• Robin D. FaisantDavid L. FletcherRoth A. GatewoodHon. Thomas P. Griesa• James O. HewittHon. Proctor R. Hug, Jr.John M. Huntington• Russell L. JohnsonDr. Joseph M. JonesHon. M. Peter KatsufrakisWilliam B. KeleherRobert A. Keller III• Inner Quad member1982 Stanford Law Fund19

• Thomas R. MitchellR. Chandler Myers• Donald V. PetroniKeith A. PurselBrooks G. RagenRichard N. RapoportEdward S. RenwickJerry G. SouthRobert C. StetsonRussell E. TeasdaleDavid M. Van HoesenGeorge V. Willoughby, Jr.Richard J. WylieKarl ZoBe11CLASS OF 1959Philip W. AaronJohn W. AldenStephen A. Bauman• James W. BoyleFred CaploeRansom S. CookStephen D. DocterNorbert Ehrenfreund• Howard N. EllmanMerrill R. FrancisArnold B. Haims• James W. Hamilton• John Paul HannaRena Ellis HinesE. Paul HomrighausenMichael G. KadensCharles W. KeyEdmund T. King IIAndrew B. KjosHans H. KoehlJames D. KowalRussel I. KullyLloyd S. Ku rtz, Jr.James E. LinnemanRichard O. MaltzmanGeorge E. McGillProf. Sidney I. Picker, Jr.Anthony R. Pie rnoCharles W. Rees, Jr.• Lawrence J. SheehanJohn K. Van de KampRobert J. Wager• Walter L. WeismanRobert D. WenzelJ. Patrick WhaleyCLASS OF 1960Robert F. AmesJoseph W. Bartlett IIPeter C. BradfordRudi M. BrewsterRobert CaplanDavid C. CarrClinton K. L. ChingNeale E. CreamerWilliam C. DeansMaxwell H. FreemanBrooke GrantJohn R. GriffithsDale E. HanstDaryl R. HawkinsMichael G. HolmesDouglas G. HouserHarold J. Hunter, Jr.Robert E. Hurley• Robe rt L. Ki ngPaul B. KuhlRichard B. LeavittRobert J. Miller• Kendyl K. MonroeD. Monte Pascoe• Paul A. RandourJerry H. Robinson-Jerald E. Rosenblum• David L. SandborgJoel H. SharpJohn E. Sloan• Richard E. SobelleJames L. SobieskiDavid B. ToyArthur E. Varden, Jr.Alan WayteRichard D. WellsKenneth B. WrightCLASS OF 1961Gerald B. AmesSheldon S. BakerJohn B. ClarkHarry C. DonkersDavid H. EatonRobert F. FisherAlbert Francke IIIW. A. FrankeDavid A. GillEdward G. GreenChauncey G. GriswoldJohn J. Hamlyn, Jr.Thomas C. IngledueStephen L. KanneCharles F. LipmanNancy Cu rtis LoftsDonald W. MaloufJohn A. MeschkeThomas J. O'Keefe• Paul K. RobertsonStanford K. RubinHon. Winifred JohnsonSharpThomas R. Shearer, Jr.Marvin S. SiegelStephen H. SiabachStanley H. SolomonDavid B. StrainProf. Peter N. SwanAnthony J. TrepelPaul C. ValentineRoderick E. WalstonH. Neal Wells IIIPhilip C. Wilcox, Jr.CLASS OF 1962Hon. Daniel B. BartlettJames H. BennettBrian G. BoothJared G. CarterDaryl C. DawsonScott F. DoolHoward D. FabrickDennis B. FarrarBernard M. Filler• Kenton C. GrangerDon T. Hibner, Jr.Donald G. HinkleDonald A. JacksonBart KoeppenRichard S. LevenbergJohn D. MacFarlaneLincoln A. MitchellHon. Patrick J. Morris• John M. Rolls, Jr.Michael S. Sands• Kerry C. SmithHarry R. StangGeorge E. Stephens, Jr.Robert H. StephensJohn A. SturgeonRobert J. TylerRichard C. White• Bernard M. WolfeRichard C. WydickCLASS OF 1963Karl H. Bertelsen• Paul G. BowerMonte BrickerW. Edward ChynowethRoy E. Crawford IIIRichard D. DreyfusHon. Mark L. EatonTerrance L. FarinaDouglas P. FergusonAlfred G. Ferris• John FreidenrichDon J. GelberTheodore W. Graham• Inner Quad member20Stanford Law Fund 1982

Thomas C. HardenFrancis S. M. HadsallJohn W. Kennedy, Jr.Carl D. LawsonRichard Y. LeMasterF. Jack LiebauJames P. LindsayJanet GertmenianMacFarlane• Richard K. MalleryGerald Z. MarerHarry R. McPikeMarvin L. MizisRichard H. NichollsRalph B. Perry IIIRichard E. RaderF. DeArmond SharpKirt F. ZeiglerCLASS OF 1964Stuart I. BertonNorman I. BookBrooksley E. BornJames S. CampbellEdwin R. ClineTheodore J. CranstonStanley A. DotenHan. Philip FahringerFrederick S. FieldsCharles R. Fowler• James C. GaitherHan. Ronald M. George• Bruce L. GitelsonJoseph H. Gordon, Jr.Ronald M. GreenbergKenneth G. GriffinH. Robert HallC. Stephen Heard, Jr.William A. Hillhouse IIW. Conrad HoskinsJohn B. Hurlbut, Jr.David L. IronsRobert K. JohnsonMaynard J. KleinRonald S. LeudemannRobert T. MautzRussell R. Palmer, Jr.Morton RibleWilfrid F. Roberge, Jr.Han. Pamela A. RymerJohn K. StewartPaul B. Van BurenJames M. WadsworthCLASS OF 1965Richard F. BarryGeoffrey C. BeaumontThomas E. BertelsenJoseph W. BurdettJames T. CaleshuAlden E. DannerBrian T. DolanJohn S. EckelsMichael R. FlickerArthur J. Fritz, Jr.Raymond GlickmanBruce G. HansonJohn R. HassenEdward S. LebowitzFred B. MillerJames E. MitchellSeth D. MontgomeryJames C. Muir, Jr.Robert A. Nebrig, Jr.LeRoy J. NeiderWilliam B. PatrickFrancesca Gardner ReeseJohn R. ReeseOsborne M. Reynolds, Jr.Charles B. Stark, Jr.• Ronald L. StynAnthony D. TarlockCLASS OF 1966Peter D. BairdStephen M. BlitzTheodore Clattenburg, Jr.Lawrence M. CohnQuentin L. Cook• J. Nicholas Counter IIIThomas A. Craven• James E. CulhaneRobert R. Davis, Jr.William A. DorlandJohn H. Dudley, Jr.Roger B. DworkinRobert S. EpsteinRaymond C. FisherMichael C. GessfordJens A. HansenNorman E. HillAlan S. KaminSandford B. King-SmithJay S. KittleDavid K. LelewerJ. Markham MarshallJohn B. McCobb, Jr.David M. MunroDonald E. NicolGeorge E. OlmsteadCarol M. PetersenRoy J. SchmidtRobert S. Schneider• Kandis Veng ris ScottWylie R. SheldonRichard J. Stall, Jr.William W. Stark, Jr.Brett C. StearnsJ. Richard ThesingKenneth D. WaltersCLASS OF 1967Allan C. AndersonLisa AndersonCharles G. ArmstrongGene L. Armstrong• William H. ArmstrongSara Twaddle BairdDavid H. BarberJohn W. BartmanGary G. Bayer• John W. BrahmColeman BreseeCharlotte BrownMarion L. BrownThomas R. Burke• William M. BurkeNeil CarreyTimothy R. CasgarMichael A. CorneliusRalph EhrenpreisJohn P. EmertPhilip L. Fisher• James M. GalbraithDavid A. GantzLeonard A. GirardMichael E. GoldDavid A. GoldfarbBrenton F. GoodrichKeith C. GroenAndrew B. GustafsonRichard K. HarrayRex A. HeesemanJoseph H. HuberDouglas B. JensenWilliam P. JohnsonRoger M. Kirkpatrick• Inner Quad member1982 Stanford Law Fund21

Paul E. Kreutz• Prof. Richard B. KuhnsJohn A. KussmaulR. Allan Leedy, Jr.Maxine H. LindeDavid C. LoringHon. Stephen W. LuelfMichael T. LyonWayne K. MinamiMichael M. MooreRobert D. MulfordHon. David N. NaugleDouglas B. NobleHarry D. PalmerWilliam R. PedderCharles E. PofahlDouglas M. RagenWilliam J. RentonRobert R. RickettMichael R. SherwoodBlakeney Stafford• Ronnie L. SvatyDouglas G. TraynerEric W. ValentineElaine T. Van BruggenJerome P. WallingfordHarvey L. ZiffCLASS OF 1968Lionel M. AllanRobert M. ArhelgerDouglas H. BartonProf. John H. BartonJames T. Bialson• Anne Kovacovich Bingaman• Sen. Jesse F. Bingaman, Jr.• Christopher D. BurdickBertram W. CarpDaniel A. CarrellBruce D. CarterDonald S. ChisumRobert A. Emmett IIIRicardo B. FerrariJohn E. FinneyGeorge E. FrasierLouise Hammer GinsburgCameron R. Graham• Stephen F. HarbisonKris HoffmanCarolee G. HouserMichael H. HudnallWalter H. IkedaHenry J. KlinkerWilliam T. LakeLynn W. LehmannCharles F. LettowAlan M. LevensteinJames H. MagagnaCharles F. MansfieldJohn S. Mason, Jr.Peter P. MillerWilliam A. Neumann• Donald E. Phillipson• Thomas J. ReillyDaniel B. RosenbaumCharles P. SainsburyRichard B. SchreiberDaniel R. SpanglerStanley L. SpanglerThomas D. StalnakerMichael F. SukinRobert L. TerryChristopher A. WestoverPeter A. WhitmanJohn B. Wilkinson• Gary D. WilsonCLASS OF 1969John G. AbbottEdgar D. AckermanJerome W. AndersonJames R. Atwood• Lawrence A. AufmuthRobert D. BartelsAlbert B. Bays, Jr.Jay S. BerlinskyLeroy BobbittRussell L. Boraas, Jr.David S. BradshawBeverly Rutman BudinDonald L. BuxtonLawrence Calof• Don M. Casto IIIOzro W. Childs IVClyde R. ChristoffersonProf. David S. ClarkMark FranichGary W. GrantMichael J. HarbersThomas H. HawleyWilliam P. Hoffman, Jr.• Darrell R. JohnsonCharles J. JudsonJoel N. KlevensRichard C. MalloryRay E. McDevittBenjamin F. MillerPatrick H. MitchellP. Robert MoyaCharles M. MurphyPhilip T. NicholsonLuis G. Nogales• Richard S. OdomFredericka PaffHarry C. Piper IIICharles F. PreussJames C. Roberton• Bruce SattlerGlen W. SchofieldRobert M. SternBruce D. StrathearnStephen G. SussmanDouglas G. Thompson, Jr.Martin B. VidgoffPaul S. VinnicofRoger A. VreeSandra Smiley WeiksnerMalcolm E. WheelerDonald K. O. WongCLASS OF 1970Richard C. AbbottTerrance M. AdlhockPercy L. AngeloR. Walter Bachman, Jr.Daniel R. BedfordPeter A. BellGilbert C. Berkeley, Jr.Robert BodkinMichael L. BurackSamuel D. CherisMichael S. CourtnageDavid ElsonJames C. FalconerJohn R. FieldsJames F. Fotenos .Alan E. FriedmanJames M. GansingerWalter W. Garnsey, Jr.John L. GenungDennis B. GoldsteinWilliam C. GorhamLaurence K. Gould, Jr.• Inner Quad member22Stanford Law Fund 1982

Alvin D. GressRobert B. HoffmanJohn I. HuhsRoger W. KirstWilliam P. MacGregor• James H. McGeeRichard l. MorningstarMartin P. O'ConnellGary S. OkabayashiAlan B. PickDuane C. QuainiWilliam R. RapsonMichael RosterStephen S. RuddJames V. SelnaRandal B. ShortArnold I. SiegelDonald W. SmiegielPhillip K. Smith, Jr.Richard C. Sutton, Jr.Geoffrey L. ThomasLawrence H. TitleAdam von DioszeghyGeorge B. Weiksner, Jr.Herbert F. WilkinsonRichard S. Wi rtzDavid l. WorrellCLASS OF 1971Russell G. AllenJohn R. Baumann• Robert I. Beaver IIPeter D. BewleyWilliam S. Boyd• Charles R. BrutonR. Frederick Caspersen• Ann Harrison CastoJack G. CharneyElaine D. ClimpsonJames J. DelongJanine M. DolezelGregory C. DyerRichard A. FinkHugh C. Gardner IIIWilliam J. GlueckJimmy K. GoodmanJonathan H. GreenfieldKaatri Boies GriggAnnie Marie Gutierrez• Colleen Gershon HaasRobert M. HaddockGlenn S. HaraHelaine Wachs HeydemannPhilip W. HoffmanCalvin H. JohnsonOliver T. Johnson, Jr.Helga Leukert Kirst• William F. Kroener IIILouise A. LaMothe• lucinda LeeEdward M. LeonardLloyd W. Lowrey, Jr.Steve A. McKeonJoan Heimbigner MeyerSally Schultz Neely• Elizabeth MarkhamNicholsonRobert D. RogersSteven V. SchnierWilliam A. SchulteIrwin H. SchwartzThomas l. ShillinglawJohn J. SweeneyMasahiko TaketomoJoseph E. TerracianoArchie C. Thomas, Jr.Duane H. Timmons• Vincent M. Von Der AheBruce N. WarrenHathaway Watson IIIRoy G. WeatherupW. Richard West, Jr.David B. WhiteheadDebbie WillardAndrew W. WrightCLASS OF 1972James E. Anderson, Jr.Andrew J. BeckScott W. Bowen• Stephen R. BrownJeffrey l. BrysonSteven H. CoreyKenneth G. CoveneyWilliam A. DahlGary T. DayBarbara Glidden DrayJames E. DrummondJerome E. Eggers• Dr. Marjorie W. EvansStephen M. FeldhausAnne White FoleyDaniel P. FriedmanRobert T. FriesLenore C. GaronKathleen M. GrahamRobert N. GrantRobert M. Greening, Jr.W. B. Hawfield, Jr.Palmer F. HinsdaleWilliam H. Hippee, Jr.Tom K. HoustonL. Francis HuckBeth J. JayKenneth M. KaplanDonald G. KariAllen M. Katzleslie M. Kratter• Kenneth B. MacKenzieJames P. MerchantB. Thomas Muellerlaurel A. NicholsLuther K. OrtonRobert E. PattersonTed W. PrimJohn T. RankGeorge B. RichardsonPeter H. Rodgers• Christina A. SnyderIsaac SteinKim StreetPhilip G. SunderlandLeonard M. TelleenW. James WareSusan Stoll WareHarry F. WartnickMary Beth WestKathryn l. WilsonCLASS OF 1973David H. AndersonRobert H. AndrewsSteven W. BaconPatrick J. BarrettThaddeus R. Beal, Jr.Bradford S. BemisStephen J. BoattiJohn M. BoninoBaird A. BrownEdward Burmeister, Jr.Sarah T. CameronJoseph H. Clasgens IIIJeffrey D. ColmanBruce L. CronanderDavid P. DeYoeSteven L. DorseyJohn N. DrobakMark R. DushmanEdward A. FirestonePriscilla B. FoxRonald K. FujikawaJerrold J. Ganzfried• Inner Quad member1982 Stanford Law Fund23

Gabriel M. GesmerMichael GilfixCornelius J. Golden, Jr.Joan B. GottschallDeborah Koss HandelGarrett L. HankenJay D. HansonJulie Kitzes HerrMorgan Day HodgsonSusan Y. IllstonRobert M. JohnsonRobert P. JohnstonMichael A. KahnDonald E. Kelley, Jr.David C. KennyMichael C. KirkRobert C. Lane• John P. LevinSanford V. LevinsonGordon G. LindemannJohn R. MackallRobert H. MillerKenneth L. Myer• Stephen C. NealJohn N. NysRobert E. OrdalRichard A. PaulKenneth J. PhilpotSusan Cooper PhilpotJohn R. PorterMerrill S. RandolAnn W. ReganDarrell L. SacklJohn W. SchlicherJerrald J. SchnackArthur P. Schneider, Jr.Garrett K. SmithNancy E. SmithDavid C. StegallWilliam H. Stuart III• Louise A. SunderlandMarshall H. TanickAndrew E. Taylor, Jr.Michael R. ThiessenStuart C. WalkerLloyd Warble• Andrew M. WhiteThomas K. WilliamsThomas G. WoodEdward F. WroeJeffery L. YablonCLASS OF 1974Edgar B. AndersonAlan K. AustinWilliam Bates IIISusan Willett BirdRobert P. CochranJoseph K. DonohueAndrew L. FaberJames T. FlynnW. Michael HaffertyJohn M. HainesRichard S. JewlerCraig W. JohnsonCharles M. KerrRaymond M. KwasnickRoss L. Laybou rnNorman H. LevineAndrew L. LippsMargaret Irwin MillerRalph C. NavarroJames C. NoonanGary L. RebackAndrew E. RubinCarl R. Schenker, Jr.Leon E. SeltzerJ. Peter ShapiroThomas E. StuenJames F. TuneStephen L. UrbanczykCLASS OF 1975Mary Calvani AndersonWilliam J. BaerStuart J. BaskinBradford O. BaughEric C. BersonLola J. BohnDavid A. ClarkeNancy Mahoney CohenEdmond M. ConnorEllen Barrie CoronswetMary Bailey CranstonAsst. Dean VictoriaSainz DiazPatricia J. DoranMichael A. DuncheonBryant G. GarthNancy Howell HendryLaurence J. HuttCraig JoyceThomas C. KtldebeckKris D. KnudsenMarilyn Epstein LevineLeonard B. Mackey, Jr.Theodore L. McCaughertyDouglas S. McGlashanJohn Y. Merrell, Jr.Michael D. MillerPaul F. PerretBarry A. PupkinGary R. RobertsLaura Stern SeaverR. Carlton SeaverCharles D. SiegelFern M. SmithWilliam R. SmithAnn M. StantonPeter H. StrongJay N. VaronJames F. VernonMarc B. VictorCLASS OF 1976Steven G. AmundsonJames H. AndrewsDaniel L. BrennerBonnie S. BrierDaniel CoopermanPatrick R. CowlishawThomas I. ElkindJanet I. EmbryWendy E. ErbThomas W. FennerDouglas E. ForrestAlain Jean-C. FreconRichard J. HeapsHomer J. HepworthJonathan L. KempnerBen H. Logan IIIDavid A. LombarderoDavid G. Luther, Jr.Ronald K. MeyerNicholas G. MillerDavrd B. OrleanPeter R. OsinoffMichael S. OstrachStephen M. PetersSteven A. ReissLawrence R. RobinsonBruce A. RosenfieldMichael R. RosielloBarbara Doyle Ro~peJohn J. SablGregory M. SchmidtSally A. SchreiberJay M. SpearsPeter J. StoneTimothy TomHnsonRand N. WhiteRalph A. ZarefskyCLASS OF 1977Lage E. AndersenMichael E. ArthurMark W. BlackmanArlene S. BobrowLarry C. BoydJohn W. BuoymasterMelva D. ChristianLloyd N. CutlerRobert A. DuncanStephen L. Griffith• Inner Quad member24Stanford Law Fund 1982

Harvey E. HarrisonNancy E. HowardDaniel C. JacobsonSteven C. KenningerRobert A. KreissKenneth M. LaffWilliam H. LawsonThomas W. LevittAgustin Medina, Jr.Mona Deutsch MillerSteven J. MillerRobert A. MintzKay Virginia NarverJanet Cutforth PenickMarc A. PrimackTobin RosenStephen L. SamuelsA. Timothy ScottMichael J. ShepardMarsha E. SimmsCLASS OF 1978Edward V. AndersonJames L. Carpenter, Jr~Carolyn E. CarterAlan G. EpsteinChristina M. FernandezRobert T. FlickMary Ann FrantzRobert GarciaMark W. GarrettJames K. GorhamRobin Wiseman HamillDavid J. HayesClifford B. HendlerRichard N. HillSarah K. HofstadterZachary I. HorowitzRobert L. JonesJay A. LaJoneSamuel M. LivermoreNancy LundeenEllen MaldonadoJonathan S. ParisCharles R. ReedJohn M. SalmanowitzElizabeth M. SchmidtChristopher T. SeaverVictoria SperryNanette Schulze StringerDouglas A. TannerStephen A. WilliamsFredric D. WoocherCLASS OF 1979Robert S. AmadorDouglas G. BairdMartin Carmichael IIIMark H. EastmanPaul A. FrydDaniel S. GoodmanBenjamin W. Hahn IIKenneth M. JacobsonRichard L. LambeMarc S. LipinskiMark W. McKnightR. Bruce MosbacherAlan S. NoparThomas H. PeeblesRobert G. Pugh, Jr.Stephan M. RayDiane L. RedleatPamela Miller RidleyRonald M. RothRichard B. VanduyneAndrew C. WilliamsKenneth E. WittWilliam J. WynhoffRandall S. YavitzDebra ZumwaltCLASS OF 1980Patrick E. BarneyCynthia Lewis BeckRonald N. BeckAlec S. BermanScott I. CanelMarcia J. Cotrone• James S. CrownMichael J. DanaherThomas M. DuffyMark R. FeatherElizabeth A. GrimesCatherine Russell HallGraeme E. HancockRussell C. HansenMichael R.JacobsonCh ristine M. LangenfeldPaul J. LarkinBrian E. LebowitzDavid F. LeviLyman R. PadenAlan I. PfefferJohn S. RiperPaul L. Saffo IIIJohn B. SwarbrickKatsuhiko TakaikeDavid B. TeminPeter R. Van PettenA. Emory Wishon IIIChristopher J. WrightMarcia H. YavitzCLASS OF 1981John V. BerryMark C. BrewerLee B. BurgunderThomas J. ByrneMartin J. CerulloMark ChandlerJ. Anthony ChavezMichael E. CutlerNina J. DavisDonald F. DonovanVictoria M. GruverJames L. HandJonathan D. ItenBonnie Gelb JacksonReuben Jeffery IIIMelinda R. KassenLaura V. KerlAyleen Ito LeeSusan E. NashThomas J. OwenRussell B. PynePatricia G. SchneiderKathleen Borrero ShawJohn D. ShyerKristi Cotton SpenceDaniel F. WakeRobert L. WaldmanTheresa A. WilkaSusan Hadley Williams• Inner Quad member1982 Stanford Law Fund25

HIGHEST LEVELSOF PARTICIPATIONLARGEST TOTALCONTRIBUTIONSClass Participation Chairperson Class Amount Chairperson1973 54% Edward A. Firestone 1951 $33,693 Douglas B. Hughmanick1951 46 Douglas B. Hughmanick 1967 31,914 David C. Loring1967 43 David C. Loring 1959 25,312 Lloyd S. Kurtz, Jr.1955 41 Newman R. Porter 1955 23,063 Newman R. Porter1952 40 Arthur J. Lempert 1958 21,611 Thomas R. Mitchell1960 39 Robert E. Hurley 1971 16,301 Lucinda Lee1969 39 Jay S. Berlinsky 1948 15,584 James D. Harris1956 38 William J. Codiga 1962 15,379 Kerry C. Smith1970 36 Gilbert C. Berkeley, Jr. 1969 15,015 Jay S. Berlinsky1961 35 Anthony J. Trepel 1968 14,480 Donald E. PhillipsonCOMPARATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS BY CLASS1981 1982Class Donors Total Participation Donors Total Participation1916 1 $ 100 25% 1 $ 100 33%1917 2 1,065 100 1 40 1001918 2 300 100 2 425 1001920 1 100 11 2 250 221921 4 235 57 2 200 661922 2 875 40 1 100 201923 3 735 33 2 250 331924 6 16,946 50 6 7,313 501925 1 80 15 2 115 281926 4 1,537 27 2 200 161927 8 1,643 40 7 1,333 391928 7 3,481 35 8 2,815 321929 10 7,275 38 9 6,560 411930 14 4,172 54 11 3,713 441931 10 4,230 37 7 3,445 291932 14 3,876 42 9 2,825 271933 12 5,175 38 14 6,475 451934 15 4,760 43 17 3,435 571935 6 3,350 32 5 3,350 281936 8 6,281 27 14 5,485 501937 8 8,442 44 6 3,120 331938 10 4,650 38 14 5,500 561939 15 3,965 45 13 3,260 411940 7 1,975 21 15 1,825 481941 9 1,175 36 8 875 321942 3 2,250 16 4 1,575 211943 2 600 17 2 600 201944 2 1,100 67 1 1,000 331945 3 325 33 4 400 571946 6 1,500 40 6 2,300 431947 16 5,303 35 17 5,063 381948 37 42,475 33 32 15,584 301949 52 24,193 38 52 31,350 3826 Stanford Law Fund 1982

LARGEST NUMBERS OFCONTRIBUTORSLARGEST AVERAGEGIFT AMOUNTClass Contributors ChairpersonClass Amount Chairperson1973 84 Edward A. Firestone 1955 $824 Newman R. Porter1967 60 David C. Loring 1951 732 Douglas B. Hughmanick1969 54 Jay S. Berlinsky 1959 666 Lloyd S. Kurtz, Jr.1971 53 Lucinda Lee 1958 655 Thomas R. Mitchell1970 49 Gilbert C. Berkeley, Jr. 1954 570 Paul W. Swinford1972 49 W. James Ware 1967 532 David C. Loring1951 46 Douglas B. Hughmanick 1962 496 Kerry C. Smith1968 45 Donald E. Phillipson 1948 487 James D. Harris1952 40 Arthur J. Lempert 1957 450 Douglas C. White!1976 39 John J. SablWilliam E. Murane1963 419 Karl H. BertelsenCOMPARATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS (Continued)1981 1982Class Donors Total Participation Donors Total Participation1950 31 27,279 25 33 13,800 291951 44 32,036 41 46 33,693 461952 38 12,197 38 40 12,991 401953 34 15,560 39 37 18,788 441954 24 17,000 29 22 12,536 281955 28 17,362 41 28 23,063 411956 22 10,210 29 28 11.,272 381957 27 11,213 32 29 13,063 341958 28 10,820 26 33 21,611 311959 32 26,533 28 38 25,312 341960 35 14,056 36 37 12,859 391961 27 4,030 29 32 5,920 351962 27 12,520 25 31 15,379 291963 29 10,206 29 28 11,720 301964 32 45,033 26 30 10,180 251965 30 5,545 27 25 4,941 241966 34 8,515 24 34 8,444 241967 54 14,899 37 60 31,914 431968 48 14,881 33 45 14,480 321969 38 8,135 27 54 15,015 391970 42 8,300 34 49 9,020 361971 57 22,647 32 53 16,301 311972 44 7,878 27 49 10,160 311973 69 10,035 44 84 12,405 541974 30 3,172 20 30 3,235 211975 46 6,068 28 35 5,805 221976 31 2,910 21 39 4,795 261977 25 12,711 17 29 4,487 211978 20 1,340 12 29 3,145 181979 22 1,535 13 22 2,045 141980 21 1,072 12 29 3,185 171981 1 25 - 28 1,500 17TOTALS 1370 $594,892 29.2% 1481 $513,946 31.2%1982 Stanford Law Fund 27

FACULTY, FORMERFACULTY &STAFFBarbara A. BabcockJohn H. BartonGary G. BayerPaul BrestJared G. CarterNancy Mahoney CohenWilliam CohenVictoria Sainz DiazRobert C. EllicksonJohn Hart ElyMarc A. FranklinDavid FreemanJoan GalleKate H. GodfreyThomas C. GreyGerald GuntherThomas JacksonJ. Myron JacobsteinJohn KaplanRobert A. Keller IIIWilliam T. KeoghJ. Keith MannBayless ManningThomas F. McBrideJohn R. McDonoughMiguel A. MendezJohn Henry MerrymanCharles J. MeyersRobert MnookinDeborah RhodeDavid RosenhanGordon K. ScottKenneth E. ScottJoseph T. SneedCarl B. SpaethPhilip H. WileHoward R. WilliamsEdwin M. ZimmermanPARENTSMrs. Ana M. Anderson ('78)Mr. and Mrs. Pon Chang ('85)Mr. and Mrs. Thomas C. Clarke ('75)Mr. Epefanio F. Cortez ('78)Mr. and Mrs. Wayne A.Davies ('72)Mr. and Mrs. HerbertFederbush ('76)Prof. Carl M. Franklin ('75)Mr. and Mrs. TheodoreGregory ('59)Mr. Richard E. Gutting,A.B. '37 ('68)Mrs. Faith F. Halley ('68)Mr. Seymour G. Laff ('77)Mr. and Mrs. Charles I.Lobel ('83)Mr. and Mrs. Harry L.Wallace ('78)Mrs. Henry Wheeler, Jr. ('50)Mr. and Mrs. Elmer R. Witt('79)( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sclass yearFRIENDSJames B. AmesCameron Baker, A.B. '58James E. S. BakerJeanann Bartels, A.B. '70Philip Biddison, A.B. '25Patrick H. Bowen, Aff. '61John E. Bryson, A.B. '65Michael A. Budin, Ph.D. '70Mr. and Mrs. Edgar M. ButtnerMrs. Rosemary R. CarrollMrs. Neal Chalmers, A.B. '21Hon. Lyle E. Cook, A.B. '29Mrs. Robert I. CoulterGregory H. Davis, A.B. '28Mrs. Jerome F. Donovan,A.B. '28William L. Enderud, A.B. '26Robert F. ErburuEdward W. Faulder, A.M. '51Charles K. Fletcher, A.B. '24Jeanette T. FletcherKent F. Frates, A.B. '60Gregory M. GalloPenny Howe GalloMerven J. Garibotto, A.B. '30Donald P. Germain, A.B. '48Joseph H. Gordon, A.B. '31Robert P. HastingsJ. Victor HerdPauline Hoffman Herd,A.B. '26Mrs. Frederick E. Hines,A.B. '29, A.M. '30Mrs. John J. Holwerda,A.B. '33Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr.,A.B. '3528Stanford Law Fund 1982

Leroy L. Hunt, Aff. '27James B. Irsfeld, Jr., A.B. '33Walter A. Johnson, A.B. '29Willard S. Johnston, A.B. '31Mrs. Roscoe D. Jones, Jr.,Aft. '50Elwood S. KendrickWilliam F. Knapp, A.B. '26Joseph F. LeonardLouis Lieber, Jr., A.B. '31Mrs. Clarisse H. Main,A.B.'22Mrs. Philip Mangold, A.B. '39Eleanore Hyman Marcus,Aft. '44Gerald D. Marcus, A.B. '38Cindy Peterson McChesney,B.S. '73Peter B. McChesney,A.B. '70Patrick J. McGaraghan,A.B. '66Walter G. Miller, A.B. '23Nagel T. Miner, A.B. '25John B. Mitchell, A.B. '52Harle Garth Montgomery,Aft. '38Kenneth F. MontgomeryThomas C. Montoya, Aft. '74Marta L. MorandoCharles T. MungerNancy Barry Munger,A.B. '45Allen L. Neelley, A.B. '58Dr. and Mrs. Richard B.OglesbyHoward M. Peters, Ph.D. '67C. Frances Petit, A.B. '31Peter Price, M.S. '54John H. Pyle, A.B. '30Ralph C. Raddue, Aft. '38Matthew S. Rae, Jr., Aff. '51Arthur C. RinskyRobert T. RussellRichard E. Ryan, A.B. '31Mrs. Mary B. W. Sattler,A.B. '41Diane W. SavageDr. George F. Schnack,A.B. '39Donald H. Shannon, A.B. '44Thomas B. Shaver, A.B. '82Talbot Shelton, A.B. '37Mrs. Renee B. Simon,M.S. '49John B. Sines, A.B. '69Meredith K. Smith, A.B. '30Mrs. Samuel Morton SmithMrs. Ethel J. Stevens,A.B. '50Dr. Serena Stier, A.B. '60Hon. John A. H. Sturgeon,A.B. '20Mrs. Veronica S. Tincher,B.S. '52Mrs. Carol C. Treanor,A.B. '62Margaret Ware Van Alstyne,A.M. '28Mrs. M .. Van den AkkerS. Gary Varga.Hon. Nancy Belcher Watson,A.B. '47Barry WhiteheadMrs. Barry Whitehead,A.B. '35Peter B. Whitehead, A.B. '61,B.S. '65Mr. and Mrs. J. RobertWilsonWilliam G. Woods, M.A. '63Mrs. Heaton L. WrennHon. Donald R. Wright,A.B. '29Dr. Robert J. Wyatt, A.B. '65LAW FIRMSGray, Cary, Ames & FryeHufstedler, Miller, Carlson &BeardsleyJohnson & SwansonO'Melveny & MyersCORPORATIONSANDFOUNDATIONSThe Allyn FoundationBen H. and Gladys ArkelianFoundationBank of America FoundationChevron, U.S.A.,IncorporatedExxon Company, U.S.A.The Samuel GoldwynFoundationLevi Strauss FoundationPacific Telephone CompanyPro Tam Software,IncorporatedLucille Ellis SimonFoundationTeledyne Charitable TrustFoundationTicor Foundation1982 Stanford Law Fund29

REUNION GIVINGWhile class reunions provide the opportunity to celebrate the pastand present, the reunion giving programs enable alumni/ae tocommemorate feelings for Stanford Law School and to demonstratephde in its accomplishments. Current students enjoy theForty-Niner Room, the student lounge built with the proceedsfrom the twenty-fifth reunion effort of the Class of 1949. Manystudents have received scholarship or loan aid provided by thereunion efforts of a number of classes. Other classes haveestablished book funds or supported the Law School in otherways. The generosity of these and other reunion classes hasenabled the Law School to give its students the best legal educationpossible. The School gratefully acknowledges the efforts ofthe 1982 reunion classes.Reunion Class Gifts50th 1932 $ 2,82545th 1937 3,12040th 1942 1,57535th 1947 5,06330th 1952 12,99125th 1957 13,06320th 1962 15,37915th 1967 31,91410th 1972 10,1605th 1977 4,487Total $100,577MATCHING GIFTSMatching gift programs havebeen instituted by numerousbusinesses and corporationsand are an integral part of corporatephilanthropy to highereducation. Law firms, too, are increasinglyestablishing gift fundsto be used to match contributions.Most of these plans aredesigned to encourage the supportof legal education byattorneys.In an era in which the privatesector is increasingly looked tofor support of education, theLaw School gratefully acknowledgesthose corporations, businesses,foundations and lawfirms which made gifts to the1982 Law Fund through matchinggift programs.In a few instances, an individual'sgift was received in 1982but the matching gift was notreceived until 1983. In suchcases, the individual's gift isacknowledged in this report andthe organization contributing thematching portion will be acknowledgedin the 1983 report.80th gifts are deeply appreciated.30Stanford Law Fund 1982

LAW FIRMMATCHING GIFTSArnold and PorterCovington & BurlingDonovan Leisure Newton &IrvineGray, Cary, Ames & FryeHale and DorrKirkland and EllisLawler, Felix & HallMcDermott, Will & EmeryMcGarrahan & HeardMemel, Jacobs, Pierno &GershMorrison & FoersterMusick, Peeler &GarrettO'Melveny & MyersReaves & McGrathSidley & AustinWilmer, Cutler & PickeringCORPORATIONAND FOUNDATIONMATCHING GIFTSAerospace CorporationAllis Chalmers Foundation,IncorporatedAmpex CorporationAtlantic Richfield FoundationBank of America FoundationBoeing CorporationChevron CorporationChubb & Son, IncorporatedCoca Cola CompanyThe Continental CorporationFoundationExxon Education FoundationReuben H. Fleet FoundationFluor FoundationFMC CorporationFord Motor CompanyErnest Gallo FoundationGATX CorporationGeneral Electric FoundationGeneral Telephone Companyof CaliforniaGulf Oil FoundationHewlett-Packard CompanyHomestake Mining CompanyHoneywell CorporationInternational BusinessMachines CorporationKennecott MineralsCorporationLane Publishing CompanyLevi Strauss FoundationThe Merck CompanyThe Mitre CorporationMobil Foundation,IncorporatedMorgan Guaranty TrustCompanyMorgan Stanley & Company,IncorporatedNational Gypsum CompanyNatomas CompanyNewmont MiningCorporationOccidental PetroleumCharitable Foundation,IncorporatedThe Ohio Bell TelephoneCompanyPacific Mutual LifeInsurance CompanyThe Peat, Marwick, MitchellFoundationPrice WaterhouseCorporationRevlon Foundation,IncorporatedDean Witter ReynoldsOrganization, IncorporatedSAGA CorporationSanta Fe IndustriesFoundationJ. Henry Schroder Bank &Trust CompanySecurity Pacific CharitableFoundationShell CompaniesFoundation, IncorporatedThe Signal Companies,IncorporatedStandard Oil Company ofCaliforniaSun Company, IncorporatedSyntex CorporationTektronix FoundationTeledyne Charitable TrustFoundationThe Times Mirror CompanyThe Travelers InsuranceCompaniesUnion Oil Company ofCaliforniaUtah International,IncorporatedVarian AssociatesWestern Electric CompanyWeyerhaeuser CompanyFoundationWhittaker Corporation1982 Stanford Law Fund31

DONORS TO SPECIALPROGRAMS AND FUNDSFor a number of years, the Annual Report has listed the names of donors ofspecial gifts which are not counted in the annual giving totals. These specialgifts provi~e vital support to a wide variety of programs including the Friends ofthe Law Library, the Carl B. Spaeth Scholarship Fund, gifts to create or add toendowment, memorial and honorific gifts, and bequests.CORPORATIONSANDFOUNDATIONSBank of AmericaChase Manhattan BankExxon Education FoundationFMC CorporationInternational BusinessMachines CorporationW.K. Kellogg FoundationRocky Mountain Mineral LawFoundationShell CompaniesFoundation, IncorporatedThe Signal Companies,IncorporatedThe L. J. Skaggs and Mary B.Skaggs FoundationStauffer Chemical CompanyTele/Tac AssociatesTooley &Company,IncorporatedFRIENDS OF THELAW LIBRARYPatronsMrs. Louis E. GoodmanSustaining MembersProf. Paul BrestAllan E. Charles '27Prof. Marc A. FranklinProf. Paul GoldsteinRichard J. Guggenhime,A.B. '61J. Sterling Hutcheson'49Prof. J. Myron JacobsteinRobert A. Keller III '58Prof. John Henry MerrymanAustin H. Peck, Jr. '38Herman PhlegerJohn A. Sutro, A.B. '26MembersR. Winfield Achor'48Luther J. Avery '53Nathan R. Berke ('76)George B. Campbell'41t C. Wendell Carlsmith '28James F. Crafts, Jr. '53Hon. Walter E. Craig '34John M. Cranston '32Curtis Darling '48David L. Davies '27Morris M. Doyle, A.B. '29Hon. Ben. C. Duniway '31Northcutt Ely '26Del Fuller, Jr. '55Richard E. Guggenhime,A.B. '29Gordon F. Hampton, A.B. '35Thomas E. Haven'48Albert J. Horn '51Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr.,A.B. '35Philip J. Hudner '55Deane F. Johnson '42Prof. John KaplanEdmund H. Kerr '51Mortimer A. Kline, A.B. '21Stanley J. Madden '35Assoc. Dean J. Keith MannBayless Manning, H. '71Hon. F. Douglas McDaniel'48John R. McDonoughCharles J. MeyersAlbert J. Moorman, Jr.Hon. Paul I. MyersHon. William A. Norris '54James E. O'BrienCharles H. Page '58Victor H. Palmieri '54Charles F. Prael '34Charles R. Purnell '49James A. Quinby '21Myrl R. Scott '55Walter R. Severson, Aff. '36George A. Sears '52Charles D. Silverberg'55George Siaff '29Hon. Joseph T. SneedCharles Stearns '33Barry H. Sterling'52ReueJ R. Sutton '33Warren R. Thoits '48Robert R. Thompson '49Clyde E. Tritt '49James B. Tucker '49Vaughn R. Walker '70Gordon M. Weber, A.B. '40Henry Wheeler '50DonorsCarl W. Anderson '28CARL B. SPAETHSCHOLARSHIP FUN'DAerospace CorporationMrs. Ana M. Anderson ('78)Paul G. Bower '63Hon. Joseph G. Babich '51Melva D. Christian '77Asst. Dean Victoria SainzDiaz '75Donovan Leisure Newton &IrvineChristina M. Fernandez '78James C. Gaither '64Robert Garcia '78James K. Gorham '78'Mortimer H. Herzstein '50Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr.,A.B. '35Catherine Lockridge Lee '53Ellen Maldonado '78The Mitre CorporationMiles Rubin '52Shell CompaniesFoundation, IncorporatedMarsha E. Simms '77Philip G. Sunderland '72Leonard M. Telleen '72Varian AssociatesW. James Ware '72Richard J. Wylie '58( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sclass year.t Deceased32Stanford Law Fund 1982

PRINCIPAL ENDOWMENT FUNDSEndowment is essential to ensure the performance of a great national lawschool and vital to the maintenance of quality legal education at Stanford. TheSchool is deeply indebted to its many alumni/ae and friends whose generosityand interest in legal education over the years have made the Stanford LawSchool possible. The funds listed below are those established throughDecember 31,1982.LAW LIBRARYFUNDSJames E. Brenner MemorialLaw Library FundClass of 1955 Reunion BookFundAlfred Gitelson BusinessLaw and FinanceEndowed Book FundRichard Leon Gove FundHerbert L. Hahn Book FundJames Irvine FoundationFundMarion Rice Kirkwood BookFundRichard E. Lang and LouiseF. Lang Book FundEdward W. Rice Book FundHerbert T. SilverbergEntertainment/CommunicationsLawMemorial Book FundJ. Arthur Tucker Oil and GasLaw Book FundHenry Vrooman Book FundThomas Young FundFACULTY ENDOWMENTSCharles A. BeardsleyProfessor of LawC. Wendell and Edith M.CarlsmithProfessor of LawWilliam Nelson CromwellProfessor of LawMarion Rice KirkwoodProfessor of LawRichard E. LangProfessor and Deanof the School of LawStella W. and Ira S. LillickProfessor of LawA. Calder MackayProfessor of LawErnest W. McFarlandProfessor of LawKenneth and HarleMontgomeryProfessor of Clinical LegalEducationGeorge E. OsborneProfessor of LawRobert E. ParadiseProfessor of NaturalResources LawRalph M. ParsonsProfessor of Law andBusinessHerman PhlegerVisiting Professor of LawJackson Eli ReynoldsProfessor of LawFrederick I. RichmanProfessor of LawWm. Benjamin Scott andLuna M. ScottProfessor of LawLewis Talbot and NadineHearn SheltonProfessor of InternationalLegal StudiesNelson Bowmen Sweitzerand Marie B. SweitzerProfessor of LawSCHOLARSHIP ANDLOAN FUNDSJon Samuel Abramson Scholarship FundChester R. and Richard D. Andrews ScholarshipFundK. Arakelian Foundation Loan FundBen H. and Gladys Arkelian Foundation ScholarshipFundCharles A. Beardsley Scholarship FundCharles E. Beardsley Scholarship FundBendheim and Frank Scholarship FundAdolphus B. Bianchi Scholarship FundRolfe B. Bidwell Scholarship FundCharles Duchesne Blaney and Isabella WilliamsBlaney Scholarship FundCarl Lee Boon Scholarship FundIrwin E. Brill, Ruth Brill and Flora E. Brill ScholarshipFund.Don M. Casto, Sr. Memorial FundJames Roy Choate Memorial FundClass of 1950 Scholarship FundClass of 1951 Reunion Student Financial Aid Fund1982 Stanford Law Fund33

Class of 1954 Reunion Student Financial Aid FundClass of 1964 Reunion Student Financial Aid FundClass of 1967 Endowed Scholarship FundClass of 1969 Endowed Scholarship FundClass of 1970 Endowed Scholarship FundClass of 1971 Reunion Loan FundClass of 1973-Thomas F. Handel MemorialScholarship FundCarlos Cooper Close and Ruth Lorraine CloseMemorial Scholarship FundValerie and Harry Corvin Scholarship FundOscar K. Cushing Scholarship FundLloyd W. Dinkelspiel, Jr. Memorial FundGeorge A. Ditz Scholarship FundJohn Cushing Duniway Scholarship F,undCharles de Young Elkus Memorial Scholarship FundThe Harold A. and Douglas M. Fendler Financial AidFundKenneth Ferguson Law Scholarship FundNathan C. Finch Discretionary FundDavid Freidenrich Scholarship FundFrank W. Fuller, Jr. Law Student Financial Aid FundMaurice Delano Fuller, Sr. Loan FundGibson, Dunn & Crutcher Endowed ScholarshipFundDaniel L. Goodman Memorial Scholarship and LoanFundMabel Jones Gottenberg Scholarship and LoanFundChalmers G. Graham Scholarship FundJames D. Haile Memorial Fellowship FundWilson F. Halley Memorial FundLloyd Gibbs Howard Memorial FundCharles A. and Margaret D. Huston MemorialScholarship FundAlma O. Johnson Scholarship FundFrank J. Johnson and G. E. Pendergast ScholarshipFundHelen Howard Jones Scholarship FundSigismund and Charlotte Kurtzig Scholarship FundCharles Ross Lewers Scholarship and Fellowship .FundStella W. and Ira S. Lillick Scholarship FundHilliard Graham Lyle Endowment FundA. Calder Mackay Memorial Scholarship FundFrank D. Madison Memorial Scholarship FundHomer I. Mitchell Memorial FundJudge Norman F. T. Main Scholarship FundAlice A. Matthiessen and Mark M. MatthiessenScholarship FundMcFarland Scholarship FundMetteer Law Scholarship FundEleanora and C. Fenton Nichols Law ScholarshipFundGeorge E. Osborne Honorary Student Loan FundStanley Pedder Law Scholarship FundWilbert S. and Emma J. Raser Scholarship FundJoseph R. Rossi Scholarship FundJane A. Sharp Loan FundTalbot Shelton Loan FundSamuel Morton Smith and Audrey Spence SmithScholarship FundHomer R. Spence Scholarship FundCharles B. Tawney and Belle Fisher TawneyScholarship FundJudge Oscar A. Trippet, Sr. Memorial Loan FundThe Keene Watkins and Austin H. Peck, Jr.Honorary Scholarship FundTheodore Weisman Scholarship FundWalter L. and Sheila Weisman Student Aid FundAbelard Whisler Student Loan FundHeaton Luse and Carolene Cooke WrennScholarship FundOTHER LAW SCHOOLSUPPORT FUNDSWilliam E. Anderson, Jr. FundFrank B. Belcher FundLewis H. Cromwell FundJoseph L. Eichler FundVerona and Burton Jayne FundRobert C. and Jean G. Kirkwood FundLeonard Lewis FundMattie Loewenberg FundGeorge H.N. Luhrs, Jr. FundKenneth Mackintosh Memorial FundEdward J. McCutchen Memorial FundGlenn McHugh FundJohn and Rosemary Mcinnis FundCharles Dunn Moore FundRichard L. Noble FundJackson H. Ralston Prize and Lectureship inInternational LawWilbert S. and Emma J. Raser FundDorothy H. and Lewis Rosentiel Foundation FundMiles L. Rubin FundR. Hunter Summers Memorial FundWalter L. and Sheila Weisman Fund34Stanford Law Fund 1982

MEMORIAL ANDHONORIFIC GIFTSMemorial and honorific gifts are used to purchasebooks for the Law Library, unless the donorspecifies otherwise. A bookplate is placed in eachsuch book, indicating the name of the person beingso honored or memorialized.MEMORIALGIFTS, 1982In Memory of:Nathan AbbottGiven by:Mr. and Mrs. James B. AmesIn Memory of:Marty AlamedaGiven by:Miles L. Rubin '52In Memory of:Leslie Lees AnixterGiven by:Simon D. Anixter '31In Memory of:Irving BriskinGiven by:Mr. and Mrs. Leo M. ZinnerIn Memory of:Laurence S. BogertGiven by:Laurence M. BogertIn Memory of:Ethel O'Hair BowmanGiven by:Mrs. Barry Whitehead,A.B. '35In Memory of:Fred Bremenkamp III '51Given by:John F. Bradley'57In Memory of:Prof. James E. Brenner '27Given by:David Freeman '55In Memory of:J. D. Patrick Burdick'49Given by:John K. Stewart '64In Memory of:Donald BurnhamGiven by:William C. Stein '31In Memory of:C. Wendell Carlsmith '28Given by:Mr. and Mrs. William F.DaileyThomas C. Ingledue '61Mr. and Mrs. Edwin D. TaylorIn Memory of:Francis CarrollGiven by:John K. Stewart '64In Memory of:Richard B. Carroll'51Given by:E. BlockMr. and Mrs. Richard A.BroomMr. and Mrs. Stephen D.BrownMrs. Rosemary R. CarrollMr. and Mrs. S. M. CiminoMichael A. DempseyMr. and Mrs. Thomas E.EpleySuzy EvansFMC CorporationMrs. Verne W. FosterDonald J. GoldbergMr. and Mrs. Noble K.GregoryMr. and Mrs. Lloyd C.HartmanMr. and Mrs. John E. HoeferWilliam A. KrupmanMr. and Mrs. David C.LandgrafMr. and Mrs. Arnold LevineMr. and Mrs. Michael J.LotitoWilliam D. Mathewson,B.A. '57Mr. and Mrs. JosephMcCannMr. and Mrs. William A.McMinnMr. and Mrs. John MoreJerome C. Muys '57Lynn C. OutwaterMr. and Mrs. Jesse E.Pond,Jr.Mr. and Mrs. Jack M. PopeMr. and Mrs. John J.RandolphH.S. RosenbluthMr. and Mrs.J. E. RossMr. and Mrs. Arthur L.SchmitzStauffer Chemical CompanyMr. and Mrs. Robert St.AubinJoseph A. TateMr. and Mrs. Raymond C.TowerVanCott, Bagley, Cornwall &McCarthyWhite & WilliamsJoseph W. WolfeWilliam G. Woods, M.A. '63In Memory of:Lewis F. ConantGiven by:William C. Stein '311982 Stanford Law Fund35

In Memory of:Clifton C. Cottrell '23Given by:Shelly Cottrell BurwellA.B. '49'Johnson & HigginsIn Memory of:Richard Crake '51Given by:Norvin L. Grauf '52Lucie Campo Grauf, Aff. '52In Memory of:John Cushing Duniway '27Given by:Mrs. Jerome F. DonovanA.B. '28'Dennis B. Goldstein '70Homestake Mining CompanyIn Memory of:Lawrence S. Fletcher '30Given by:Charles K. Fletcher, A.B. '24Jeanette T. FletcherIn Memory of:David Freidenrich '28Given by:Lawrence A. Aufmuth '69David L. Fletcher'58Mrs. David FreidenrichJohn Freidenrich '63Gregory M. GalloPenny Howe GalloRobert N. Grant '72Jonathan H. Greenfield '71Paul E. Kreutz '67Patrick J. McGaraghan,A.B. '66Martha L. MorandoArthur C. RinskyRobert T. RussellDiane W. SavageIn Memory of:Maurice Delano Fuller, Sr.Given by:Del Fuller, Jr. '55 and FamilyIn Memory of:Norman H. Garey '60Given by:Bernstein, Fox & GoldbergBreslauer, Jacobson &RutmanColumbia Pictures IndustriesEMI Films, IncorporatedGarey, Mason &SloaneStephen A. Kroft '68Ronald R. RobinsonRosenfeld, Meyer &SusmanJohn A. SchulmanTooley &Company, Inc.In Memory of:B. GibbsGiven by:Glenn GibbsIn Memory of:Wilson F. Halley '68Given by:Charles F. Mansfield '68Charles P. Sainsbury '68In Memory of:Thomas F. Handel '73Given by:Patrick J. Barrett '73Thaddeus R. Beal, Jr. '73Bradford Bemis '73James M. Bonino '73Baird A. Brown '73Edward D. Burmeister '73Sarah Cameron '73Joseph H. Clasgens III '73Jeffrey D. Colman '73Bruce L. Cronander '73David P. DeYoe '73Steven L. Dorsey'73Edward A. Firestone '73Priscilla Fox '73Daniel P. Friedman '73General Electric CompanyGabriel M. Gesmer '73Michael Gilfix '73Myra Gerson Gilfix '76Joan B. Gottschall '73Deborah K. Handel '73Garrett L. Hanken '73Jay D. Hanson '73Julie Kitzes Herr '73Morgan Day Hodgson '73Susan Y. !Ilston '73MichaelA. Kahn '73Donald C. Kelley, Jr. '73David C. Kenny '73Michael C. Kirk '73Gordon G. Lindemann '73John R. Mackall '73John N. Nys '73Robert E. Ordal '73Richard A. Paul '73Kenneth J. Philpot '73Susan Cooper Philpot '73Merrill S. Randol '73Ann W. Regan '73Garrett K. Smith '73William H. Stuart III '73Marshall H. Tanick '73Michael R. Thiessen '73Stuart C. Walker '73Lloyd Warble '73Andrew M. White '73Edward F. Wroe '73Jeffery L. Yablon '73In Memory of:Joseph HermanGiven by:William C. Stein '31In Memory of:Alvin HessGiven by:Mr. and Mrs. Leo M. ZinnerIn Memory of:Alma C. Kays '47Given by:Judith S. Adams, A.B. '57,A.M. '59Frances D. AshleyProf. Harold M. Bacon,A.B. '28Mrs. Harold M. BaconA.B. '30, A.M. '32 'Prof. and Mrs. AlbertBanduraHon. William Biddick, Jr. '47Mr. and Mrs. John D. BlackMarina BoudartMichel BoudartMr. and Mrs. Arthur C.BrysonMr. and Mrs. Edgar M.ButtnerChase Manhattan BankMrs. Robert A. ChaseAriel S. Compton, M.D. '51Kenneth M. CuthbertsonA.B. '40, MBA '47 'Coline Upshaw CuthbertsonA.B. '40'36Stanford Law Fund 1982

Olivia Cross Davies '48Mr. and Mrs. Philip G. DuffyDonald A. Dunn '51Elizabeth DunnYvonne K. EricksonMr. and Mrs. Thomas FingarMr. and Mrs. G.F. FranklinMalcolm H. Furbush '49Margaret McKittrickFurbush, A.M. '49Mrs. Alma T. GaylordJames M. Gere, Ph.D. '54Mrs. James M. GereProf. and Mrs. JamesGibbonsProf. and Mrs. Albert H.HastorfProf. and Mrs. Warren H.HausmanDavid G. Haynes, Aff. '50Janice Haynes, Aff. '50I.B.M.Mr. and Mrs. William J.IversonFranklin P. Johnson, Jr.,B.S. '50President and Mrs. DonaldKennedyMr. and Mrs. Gordon S. KinoS.J. Kline, A.B. '43Mr. and Mrs. John G. LinvillDavid G. Luenberger,Ph.D. '63Nancy Luenberger, B.S. '61President Emeritus and Mrs.Richard W. LymanAssoc. Dean & Mrs. J.Keith MannMr. and Mrs. James D.MeindlMr. and Mrs. Harry S.MosherMr. and Mrs. Thomas C.MoserJohn and DianeMothershead, Jr.Mr. and Mrs. Lyle M.NelsonLeona Siff Pantell '56Mr. and Mrs. Otis A. PeaseSallie Tiernan Reynolds,A.B. '45 ('75, '77, '79)Barbara Riper, A.B. '53Christopher T. Seaver '78Patrick T. Seaver '77R. Carlton Seaver '75Dorothy B. SheffieldHelen and Wesley TrimpiArden K. WeinbergMr. and Mrs. Robert L.WhiteIn Memory of:Lou KingGiven by:William C. Stein '31In Memory of:Richard E. Lang '29Given by:Mrs. James Eugene FrankRichard L. FrankIn Memory of:Oscar LawlerGiven by:Lawler, Felix & HallRichard F. Outcault, Jr. '50In Memory of:Joseph LebedaGiven by:Mr. and Mrs. Richard I.WilsonIn Memory of:Associate Dean Joseph E.LeiningerGiven by:Barbara AdamsC. Wilson AustinProf. and Mrs. John H.BartonMr. and Mrs. Joseph T.BartosGary G. Bayer '67Carlos T. Bea '58Mr. and Mrs. William H.BeaverMr. and Mrs. Arthur E.BrysonMark Chandler '81Mr. and Mrs. William A.ClebschNancy Mahoney Cohen '75Prof. William CohenLelda A. DeahlAsst. Dean Victoria S.Diaz '75Betty L. DolanSharon DoyleMr. and Mrs. M.M.DunnenbergerYvonne K. EricksonMr. and Mrs. W. RichardEshelmanMr. and Mrs. Ira O. FisherJoan GalleAnne von der LiethGardner '58Peggy GaleKate Godfrey, A.B. '73Mr. and Mrs. Herman G.HammackKatherine K. HenselMr. and Mrs. Tom HerbHarry G. HillDorsey S. HinesDora Z. HjertbergMr. and Mrs. William S.HoffmannMr. and Mrs. P. DavidHollemanProf. and Mrs. J. MyronJacobsteinMr. and Mrs. Eric KallstromMr. and Mrs. HerbertLindenbergerAssoc. Dean J. Keith MannLinda J. Marks, A.B. '70Mabel E. MayhoodZelda McDonaldProf. John Henry MerrymanMadeleine C. MeyerProf. David MontgomeryToby Franks Montgomery'78Mary A. MooreMr. and Mrs. Walter MuellerPhyllis M. MunroEsther C. PetersenMr. and Mrs. HaroldPetersenProf. A. Mitchell PolinskyMr. and Mrs. Richard R.PowellProf. Norbert ReichCheryl W. RitchieLucille H. RosemanMr. and Mrs. John E. RothProf. Kenneth E. ScottGladys W. SmithJoy St. JohnStanford Law Library StaffStem FamilyPhyllis Berk StephensHoward W. SugarmanSyntex CorporationMarilyn O. Tesauro '81Mr. and Mrs. George L.Toms, Jr.Koji TsubakiMr. and Mrs. J. Hugh TurnerProf. and Mrs. Robert B.WagonerMr. and Mrs. Albert A. WellerJack and Annabelle WernerProf. Howard R. Williams1982 Stanford Law Fund37

Clyde E. Tritt'49William W. VaughnSidney H. WallRichard C. WarmerPhilip F. WestbrookJohn R. White, A.B. '26Mrs. John R. WhiteWilmer, Cutler and PickeringDr. Harold Witherbee,M.D. '54Helen Bentz Witherbee,A.B. '21Pierce WorksCarol Reid Wulff, A.B. '21Charles L. ZetterbergStephen I. ZetterbergIn Memory of:Earl S. Odell '55In Memory of:Louis Marx, Sr.Given by:Assoc. Dean And Mrs. J.Keith MannIn Memory of:Ivan G. McDaniel '21Given by:Richard M. Blois '53Evelyn FletcherViolet FletcherBobbe FrankenbergDavid M. GhormleyIn Memory of:Peggy L. McElligott '50Given by:California Association ofSanitation AgenciesMr. and Mrs. Harold D.DrakeLedger D. Free '50Elaine Maltzman Greenhill,A.B. '48Mortimer H. Herzstein '50Mr. and Mrs. Jack HoyalHurwitz, Remer, McDonald& MeadeJones, Hall, Hill &WhiteMr. and Mrs. Stan LewisElizabeth C. Mallory, B.A. '48Elton F. Martin '50Mr. and Mrs. Lester E.MasonQuartz Hill Water DistrictMr. and Mrs. L. J. SalkeldHarlan K. Veal '50Wilson, Morton, Assaf &McElligottIn Memory of:Camilla Strong MillerGiven by:Maynard J. Klein '64Michael M. Sachs '65In Memory of:Homer I. Mitchell '23Given by:Bank of AmericaBarton B. Beek, MBA '48Richard C. BergenBlecher, Collins & HoeckerGirard E. Boudreau, Jr.William B. CarmanR. Bradbury ClarkEverett B. Clary'49Mr. and Mrs. George W.CoombeMr. and Mrs. Charles E.DavisMrs. Donald W. DoryHarry L. DunnFrancis C. DykemanMrs. Williamine S. EngelHon. William P. GrayJames C. GreeneMr. and Mrs. Austin H.HathawayRobert HenigsonMr. and Mrs. CharlesHowardPhilip D. Irwin '57Deane F. Johnson'42Cornelia MitchellJohn B. Mitchell, A.B. '52Thomas R. Mitchell '59O'Melveny & MyersAustin H. Peck, Jr. '38John B. PowerMr. and Mrs. R.H. Reid, Sr.Jane W. SchimpffMrs. Frances W. RenwickGiven by:Barbara M. AdamsMr. and Mrs. Lawrence H.BakkenRobert Batlin, A.B. '52,A.M. '54Mrs. Robert BatlinMr. and Mrs. Norman J.BrownMargaret F. Coykendall,A.B. '52Mr. and Mrs. William F.DaileyDorothy Dodge, B.A. '53David Freeman '55Mr. and Mrs. Douglas B.FieldsMr. and Mrs. TheodoreHammMrs. Carolyn C. HawLivermore - AmadorSymphony AssociationJames R. Madison '59Mary Madison, A.B. '53The Maltzman FamilyHelen Kessel McCrary,A.B. '52Robert McCraryMr. and Mrs. Blake MyersMr. and Mrs. W. H. ParnessMrs. Robert Patterson &FamilyMr. and Mrs. William J.Payne38Stanford Law Fund 1982

John H. Pitts'48Mr. and Mrs. Edwin C.RundstromMr. and Mrs. John A.SarborariaMr. and Mrs. Claude A.SmithMr. and Mrs. Joseph F.SmithMr. and Mrs. George E. StahlMr. and Mrs. WilliamStruthers, A.B. '43Mr. and Mrs. R. W. TieckeMrs. Beatrice S. WalkerIn Memory of:John E. O'LearyGiven by:Friends and Colleagues fromthe County of San MateoIn Memory of:Prof. George E. OsborneGiven by:Hon. Richard H. Chambers'32Jesse Feldman'40Carla A. Hills, A.B. '55Roderick M. Hills '55Dr. Joseph M. Jones '58Jerome D. Peters '39In Memory of:Prof. Herbert L. PackerGiven by:Prof. Gerald GuntherBarbara MargosisMichel MargosisIn Memory of:William Pembleton, Jr. '76Given by:Mrs. Ella C. Bosher ('76)In Memory of:Victoria Popkin '67Given by:Lisa Anderson '67John P. Emert '67Given by:Assoc. Dean and Mrs. J.Keith MannIn Memory of:Admiral Herman ReichGiven by:William C. Stein '31In Memory of:Alan RosenbergGiven by:William C. Stein '31In Memory of:Ursula SandrisserGiven by:Miles L. Rubin '52In Memory of:Betty Scott (' 64)Given by:Helen AllenHarriett K. AmbroseArt BethasTom L. ColbyBarbara B. EdmistonBert G. GribbleLovina V. GuardRuth W. GunnMargaret W. JacksonMr. and Mrs. JamesMcBurneyElsie McGillDr. and Mrs. R.H. McilroyMr. and Mrs. Earl R. MedillKatie MedillMr. and Mrs. Kenneth W.MedillVirginia M. RouchMr. Kenneth C. RuleMrs. Alice C. RuleMr. and Mrs. John M. ScottKenneth M. Scott ('64)Elvera R. SwansonDr. and Mrs. Carl SwartzErna S. TrefzFred H. VossLeta M. WattsWomen's Circle NO.1Given by:Thomas L. Shillinglaw '71In Memory of:J. Calvert SnyderGiven by:Victor Goehring '54In Memory of:Hon. Homer R. SpenceGiven by:Mrs. Samuel Morton SmithIn Memory of:Therice H. Stahle '31Given by:Keith L. Stahle '37In Memory of:R. Hunter Summers '78Given by:Johnson &SwansonMr. and Mrs. R. B. SummersIn Memory of:Barbara Averill SuttonGiven by:ReuelR.Sutton '33In Memory of:J. Arthur Tucker '21Given by:John A. Tucker, Jr., A.B. '59In Memory of:Marshall V. Zinner '55Given by:David Freeman '55Myrl R. Scott '55Mr. and Mrs. Leo M. ZinnerHONORIFICGIFTS, 1982In Honor of:Hon. Winslow L. Christian '49Given by:Gerald Z. Marer '63In Honor of:Fred IlfeldGiven by:Mr. and Mrs. Sol LeshinIn Honor of:Sol LeshinGiven by:Betsy B. Lesse rIn Honor of:Joseph T. Melczer, Jr. '37Given by:Marjorie Melczer RayIn Honor of:Dr. Milton RoseGiven by:Mrs. David Freidenrich( ) Indicates son's or daughter'sclass year.In Memory of:Richard R. PowellIn Memory of:David T. Shillinglaw1982 Stanford Law Fund39

BEQUESTS AND DEFERRED GIVINGBequests and life income gifts fromalumni/ae and friends provide importantsupport to Stanford Law School and tothe University. Such gifts establish ameaningful memorial for the donor orsomeone the donor wishes to honor,while enabling the donor to assist in thecontinuing progress of the School andthe University. The School appreciatesthe efforts of the Deferred GivingCommittee, consisting of Robert L.Beardslee, Jr. '29, Vincent Cullinan '36,Paul M. Ginsburg '68, and CharlesStearns '33, Chairman.Attorneys who have clients or friendswho are considering bequests or lifeincome gifts should know they may callon Stanford attorneys for assistance inplanning or drafting gift provisions(student loan fund, scholarships, professorships,etc.). Please telephone orwrite to one of the following:Dick Blois (415/497-1256)Russ Meyer (415/497-1357) orCarol Swenson (415/497-3345)Legal SectionOffice of Development301 Encina HallStanford UniversityStanford, CA 94305Thoughtful estate planning madepossible gifts designated for StanfordLaw School from the following estateslast year:Estate of Bethel B. BurbankEstate of R. Leon GoveEstate of Lloyd Gibbs HowardEstate of A. Calder MackayEstate of Glenn McHughEstate of Nellita Choate Thomsen40Stanford Law Fund 1982