INTERVIEW SUBJECT: Howard Orenstein INTERVIEW DATE: April 1, 2014 TRANSCRIBER: Kelley E. Spears TRANSCRIPTION DATE: June 16, 2024 Norman Janes: My name is Norman Janes, and I have the pleasure of interviewing Howard Orenstein. This is the 1st of April 2014. This interview is part of the Connecticut Bar Foundation's James W. Cooper Fellows History of Legal Services in Connecticut Project. And so, Howard, thanks very much for giving us some time. And we need to say that we're doing this through the magic of Skype. Howard is in his home in California, and we're here at Quinnipiac University in Hamden. So, Howard, welcome again. Howard Orenstein: Thank you. Norman Janes: So we're asking folks, Howard, to begin by -- give us a little brief bio of your Legal Aid history so that we know the context of some of the conversation we'll have. Howard Orenstein: Sure. I got out of law school in 1962, and I spent two years with a Fairfield County law firm in Bridgeport and Westport. And at that time I was representing quite a number of people who were very well-to-do, some of them quite famous, and handling the kind of law that a lot of young lawyers think that they want to handle when they first get out of law school. And then I found out that there are was an opening at the Legal Aid Society in Hartford working for Bill Graham who was one of the early pioneers in legal services in this country. So I went and interviewed with Bill. And so from 1962 to '64 I was with the Shein Law Firm. '64 to '66 I was with Legal Aid in Hartford, which is the Legal Aid Society of Hartford County, as their assistant director. '66 to '67, when the Office of Economic Opportunity began to fund neighborhood law offices, I became the Senior Attorney and Director of Field Operations for Neighborhood Legal Services in Hartford. Then I had a period from '67 to '75 when I served as chief counsel to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and also conducted a private practice. During that time I served on the Board of Directors of Neighborhood Legal Services, including serving as its chairman. And I was a consultant to the Office of Economic Opportunity, Legal Services Division, and also interacted very regularly with Legal Services lawyers because the work that I did at the Commission and the work that Legal Services lawyers do have a lot of crossovers, particularly in legislation. Then I came back to Legal Services, 1975 to '79, as Executive Director of Neighborhood Legal Services in Hartford. And after '79, I came out here to San Diego where I helped start a new law school. Norman Janes: That's quite a resume. Can we -- let's go back to the early time when you first started with the Legal Aid Society. This is before the federal funding. Howard Orenstein: Right. Norman Janes: And was there just the two of you working there or was there bigger staff than that? Howard Orenstein: There were the two of us. Norman Janes: Okay. Howard Orenstein: We were two lawyers in the basement of City Hall in a county of 690,000 people, and we were all that existed for poor people in Hartford at that time. Norman Janes: And so what kind of legal work were you doing for them? Howard Orenstein: In those days it was landlord-tenant, family, criminal law. We did civil defense, particularly in the consumer area. And then we -- Bill and I both would, from time to time, take on particular cases that had a particular interest that took us out of the ordinary caseload. And there were a couple of those which we can talk about later on. Norman Janes: So I don't want to jump too far ahead, but what was the different -- was there any difference in the caseload from the Legal Aid Society prior to the federal funding and what happened once Neighborhood Legal Services got started? Or was it pretty much the same kind of clients and legal work for the clients? Howard Orenstein: Totally different. The Legal Aid was a community chest funded organization; a long history. And as I said, we were in the City Hall. When the federal government began to fund neighborhood law offices, that put us out into the neighborhoods, produced a completely different clientele, and a lot of issues that had, I think, never been really covered before because we were no longer doing just the day-to-day, one-on-one, but we had some funding, we could increase our staff, we could concentrate on certain special areas. It was a very different operation altogether. Norman Janes: Can you give me an example of some of the kinds of work that you were able to do with Neighborhood Legal Services and the federal funding that you hadn't done with the community chest funding? Howard Orenstein: Well, first of all, at Legal Aid with Bill Graham -- he was a remarkable man. And I did get to do some very interesting work with him. When Neighborhood Legal Services came along, I would say we got to do more. And probably more -- maybe more ambitious because we had more staffing and also a wonderful network of relationships with the private bar where, for an example, one case that we can talk about later, our office handled the first Legal Services victory in the United States Supreme Court, which is a case called Shapiro versus Thompson. We only had four lawyers at that time, but we had 28 lawyers working on the case, including the president of the bar, a fellow by the name of Bill Mohler who was a wonderful man. And including John Newman who is the president of our board who got us a Harvard law professor to come in and argue the second round on that particular case. So it was a -- just a different dimension I would say. Norman Janes: And was there any political constraint on the Legal Aid Society being in City Hall? Did you or Bill Graham feel that maybe you couldn't be too aggressive because of the connection with the city, or government, or was that not a factor? Howard Orenstein: I don't think it was that. I think it was the perception of the office by the clients. The clients that came to the Legal Aid Society tended to be not from the very most impoverished parts of the city. They were the people who were comfortable coming to City Hall. Whereas, if when you're out in the neighborhoods, I mean, our first office was in a warehouse in a part of the community where there had been three murders in the previous month. It was a different climate. And the trust that we had to establish with that client community, that was probably one of the major concerns for the program when we first started out because people in that community thought of lawyers as the ones who came after them, not the ones who assisted them. Norman Janes: Yeah. Yeah. So -- and there were -- how many offices did Neighborhood Legal Services have, two or three to begin with? Howard Orenstein: We had -- well, we opened up one in the north end of Hartford, which is -- which in those days was primarily a black community. We opened up one in the south end of Hartford, which at that time had a lot of Puerto Rican people and Latin American people. And then later there was a third office, which was more of an administrative office. Basically the city was divided along where we thought the client services would be the most effective. And in all cases it was not in the kind of offices that we had, let's say, in a private law office. Norman Janes: Well, let's talk a little bit about the kind of cases that you did at Neighborhood Legal Services when you started there. Actually, let me ask one question first, and maybe that will slide us into the Shapiro case because you suggested that the prior bar was very involved. And I'm gathering then that you got a lot of support from the local bar in establishing Neighborhood Legal Services and getting it going? Howard Orenstein: That's right. The structure of the board helped. We were a board that had -- I think it was one-fourth community people from the neighborhoods, one-fourth Legal Aid people, one-fourth bar people, and -- let me see. On the other end was the community action program people, which tended to be also neighborhood people. But the presence on the board of some of the really distinguished members of the bar didn't hurt. Norman Janes: Yeah. Yeah. Howard Orenstein: And Bill Graham had already established enough of a reputation with the Legal Aid program so that it was really a different climate. I know, for instance, I worked in Bridgeport, and I remember some of the climate there. I did a little bit of exploring out in Talen Windham (ph) when I was in Hartford, and I know that there were -- there was resistance. Norman Janes: Who? Hartford was different -- Howard Orenstein: Bench. Both. Norman Janes: Right. And was the bench, no problems from the judges either? Howard Orenstein: It depended on who the judge was. Norman Janes: And I'm wondering about the landlord-tenant in particular because I know at some other places judges were pretty reluctant to follow the law as we interpreted it. Howard Orenstein: I didn't -- I didn't -- I don't remember that if it was so. Maybe I've sublimated it, but I don't remember that. Norman Janes: Okay. Well, and it is really interesting because you're not the first person to talk about the experience of Hartford, which is really very different than in New Haven -- Howard Orenstein: Yeah. Norman Janes: -- and Talen Windham (ph) and in Fairfield County. So that's an interesting -- maybe the local climate really does make a difference. Howard Orenstein: Well, if you have -- I mentioned John Newman. Norman Janes: Yeah. Howard Orenstein: Jack was -- at the time was U.S. Attorney. He later was on the Second Circuit. He suggested to us when we had won the first round in Shapiro in the U.S. Supreme Court that the second round, which had to do with federal legislation, it might be good to call in Archibald Cox. Most -- I don't think most programs would have had that ability to be able to do that. It was just basically he came in and argued the case for us the second time around. Norman Janes: Why don't you tell us about the Shapiro case, what was involved and how that came about. Howard Orenstein: A lady who was expecting a child that was on welfare in Springfield, Massachusetts, her mother lived in Hartford. She wanted to come to be with her mother so her mother could help her during her pregnancy. When she got to Hartford and she applied for state welfare in Connecticut, they said well, you haven't lived here for at least a year. She actually thought about going back up to Springfield. And they said well, you've moved away from here so you're also not -- here she was pregnant and not all that physically feeling well. So the case had to do with the issue of what is sometimes called the right to travel, but it more particularly was related to the right to migrate between states and not to be penalized for moving between states. It was a very -- one of the things that interested me was when Judge Bork was up for confirmation at the U.S. Supreme Court, he said he didn't like Roe versus Wade and he didn't like Brown versus Board of Education, but he liked Shapiro versus Thompson. And the reason he liked it was that it related to something very basic and fundamental in the American way of life, namely to be free to travel. Norman Janes: So how -- what was the decision to file the case? Was that -- and who was doing the work and those kinds of things? Howard Orenstein: It started -- there was a little history before. Bill Graham had had a case in New Haven, I don't know how many years before, but he had told me about it. That was under a prior statute in which if you came into the state without visible means of support, the state police put you on a bus and sent you back, all right. He brought a suit, they backed off on that, and they passed this law, which is obviously an indirect way of doing the same thing, right. So Bill was obviously -- helped on the case. I was -- I supervised primarily those 28 lawyers in terms of correlating all the portions of the briefs that we put together. The lead counsel was Brian Hollander who was a very bright and capable young man, and everybody else in the office -- which wasn't that many people -- Syd Schulman, who's now the Mayor of Bloomfield, Stu Rosen who went to the Internal Revenue Service, and Stu Schimelman who was a judge in Connecticut. It was a very collaborative experience. Norman Janes: And how much experience did all of you have when you started that case? Howard Orenstein: Well, let's see. We started it in '60 -- probably '67, '68. I got out in '62. I was the oldest one, five years. Norman Janes: Okay. All right. Howard Orenstein: Brian had clerked for the courts. Everybody else I think was -- Syd had just come out of the Air Force. I don't remember what the two Stus were doing, but we were all very young. Norman Janes: Right. Right. Right. Howard Orenstein: And a very educational experience for everybody involved. Norman Janes: And so the case went from the federal district court to the Second Circuit and then to the Supreme Court? Howard Orenstein: We didn't have to go to the Second Circuit. We used a procedure in those days was available if you were attacked -- if you were asking a federal court to declare a state statute unconstitutional, you could get a three judge court. The three judge court decision was appealable, not by cert but appeal, directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. So that was a learning experience also because Bill and I had -- I don't remember how much before we had tried to get another case in the U.S. Supreme Court on cert and failed by one vote. Norman Janes: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Howard Orenstein: The procedure itself was very important. Norman Janes: Was there a trial of any substance at the district court level, at the three court -- three judge court level? Howard Orenstein: Yes, there was. Norman Janes: I mean, you had to introduce factual evidence? Howard Orenstein: Yes, of course. The plaintiff and actually the defendant, Shapiro, who was the state welfare commissioner testified. And he was quite helpful to us. I don't think that he believed that the statute's a good statute either. Norman Janes: Oh, okay. All right. All right. But most of the work was the legal argument that was made -- Howard Orenstein: That's correct. Norman Janes: -- both before the three judge court and the Supreme Court? Howard Orenstein: I think the thing to know is that, for instance, I teach constitutional law, and I've taught it out here for a long time. That case is in all the common law books. The reason it's in all the common law books is because it was the -- what was called then the High-Water Mark of equal protection. The argument that the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right was found in only one previous case not directly on point in a law review article. And so we had to really put together a brief that showed all the various ways in which it did affect people constitutionally. And when the Supreme Court ruled, I think it was five separate grounds upon which they found this. In fact, they more or less said we don't care to tell you exactly what ground it is, but it certainly violates the citizenship laws, it probably violates the privileges and immunities clause of both the 14th and Article IV Section 2, and equal protection; probably the commerce clause. And Bork's opinion, which happens to be mine, is that it was -- it had to do with the structure of the constitution itself and the relationship between the states and the federal government so that the states could not establish barriers to an American citizen traveling from one state to the other. I agree with him on that. And that's -- I don't know if any of the judges ever said that. Norman Janes: Oh, interesting. Now, you mentioned a second round at the Supreme Court. What happened there? Howard Orenstein: There had been a congressional act which the State argued had authorized the one-year residency requirement by the State. We took a position that it made no difference because if it was a violation of the constitution ___ couldn't do it either. But it helped to have Archibald Cox make that argument for us rather than four young guys from Hartford. Norman Janes: Yeah. Yeah. Right. And he argued the case in the Supreme Court, right, for you? Howard Orenstein: The second round. The first round was argued with Brian, and the second round was argued by Archibald Cox. Norman Janes: And when you say second round, they didn't decide one case and then another one came up. You had two separate arguments -- Howard Orenstein: Yes. Norman Janes: -- and on the same case? Howard Orenstein: They gave us -- they gave us a -- they asked us to brief the question separately after the first argument had been made. Norman Janes: I got you. I got it. Okay. Okay. And just who was it that organized all of these 28 lawyers from the local bar? Was that John Newman's initiative, or Bill Mohler's, or how did that come about? Howard Orenstein: I have to say with a sheepish modesty, I did. Norman Janes: Well, good for you. Howard Orenstein: Yeah. Norman Janes: Good for you. Howard Orenstein: I had -- there were an awful lot of lawyers in Hartford that I had great respect for, and they all pitched in. I'd say one fellow who was -- I don't want to mention his name, but he was a sole practitioner and he concentrated on problems of the disabled. He was disabled himself. I gave him a portion of the equal protection brief. He did an unbelievable job on that. And these things all got -- Bill Mohler did a part of the briefing. And I don't know if you know, but when they did the Connecticut General Statutes Annotated, he wrote a lot of the annotations. Norman Janes: Yeah. Howard Orenstein: So we had wonderful talent going on. And, you know, coordinating that and organizing all that, I had fun doing that. Norman Janes: Well, yeah. That sounds like it's hard to have such a high point so early in your career, I'm sure. Howard Orenstein: Right. Yes. Norman Janes: It really is a neat story. Are there kinds of cases -- were there other cases that you were able to do that made some change in the law or clarified some of the law that helped lots of clients? Howard Orenstein: I just happen to have a list. I'm looking at them here. I think the thing that we tried to do was have what we call test cases or impact cases come out of the caseload. Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: And so each one -- each lawyer in the office tended to take one kind of matter. Stu Schulman [sic] was doing consumer, so he took to the question of holder in due course in consumer transactions. He won it in court. And we also later got it put into the statute law. That's a big deal really at the time. Syd did -- Syd Schulman did a lot of community education and community organization. Profound effect upon the community I would say. Let's see. I may be forgetting somebody. I'll give you a couple that I had -- I enjoyed. One of them is -- I'll give you citation because we're lawyers. Norman Janes: Sure. Howard Orenstein: Arbo versus Hegstrom, 261 Fed Supp 397 (1966), and the Joseph versus Connecticut, 385 US 982 (1966). Those are two cases that Bill and I worked on. They had to do with when counsel would be appointed in a criminal case. They were after Gideon and before Argersinger. We almost got it done in the U.S. Supreme Court before Argersinger. That's the case we didn't get that last fourth vote, but we won in the district court on a habeas. And that produced appointments from that point on in Connecticut for criminal cases if you had a possibility of loss of liberty. That was an important case. Norman Janes: Yeah. And that was one that must have started when you were with Legal Aid Society, right? Howard Orenstein: That's right. That's right. That's what I meant when I said he -- Bill taught me Habeas corpus, he taught me a lot about federal procedure and appellate law. I mean, I can't say enough about him. He later also became a Superior Court judge. Let's see. I would say Berlinski versus Ovellette, which is 164 Conn. 482 (1973) was not our case, but they used my brief. And what it was was, in those days, insurance companies would bring suits on behalf of their insured against defendants in, for instance, an automobile accident case, okay. And I really handled that matter because of a personal gripe. I had two video files on my desk and I wanted to figure out a way to get them off my desk. And one of the ways that I figured was -- and this is pretty interesting -- at common law, Connecticut recognized champerty, barratry, and maintenance. That was something I learned in law school and never heard again until we had this case. What I argued in briefs before the Superior Court was that when an insurance company paid its insured and then was subrogated to that insured's rights in a personal injury action as opposed to a property action, it violated champerty, barratry, and maintenance. And I found the case. And it was either Kirby, Root or Day, which you will know as before Boggini (ph) of the Connecticut Reports. Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: What happened was every time I filed discovery to flesh out whether or not this was a subrogation case, the insurance companies backed away. And so I got all those files off my desk. Then after I left Legal Aid, Bill Graham called me and said somebody in New Haven wanted to challenge it and could they use my brief. And that was Berlinski versus Ovellette. That was a fun case. Norman Janes: There you go. Interesting. Can we jump from the time you were there in the late 60s when Neighborhood Legal Services started, you said you came back in the later 70s? Howard Orenstein: Right. Norman Janes: Right. What was different about the kind of work, the clients, the atmosphere between those two times? Howard Orenstein: Well, in my first time around '66 is when Legal Services started. I mean, I think New Haven was first, we were second if I remember rightly. So that was, I think -- I think you'd been doing these interviews and you talk about pioneering. That was pioneering kind of. Norman Janes: Yeah. Yeah. Howard Orenstein: By the time we got to '75 and '79, the reason I went back was, honestly, I was at the Commission on Human Rights. I got a call from the Board at Neighborhood Legal Services. They said they were losing half their funding and could I come and help. And so I went back primarily initially to raise funds. And I did. I raised -- I took -- and actually, I think I tripled or quadrupled the budget. So that was what I was there for. And as a result, of course, I recruited a lot of staff and set up a much more firm organization there. And it was different at that time because I think Legal Services was established, the lawyers were much more -- I think much more adept and much more experienced. And I primarily administered -- although I did do casework also, I had one in particular, a Kathy Breznian (ph) case which was a young lady who tried to kill herself. And it was almost two years that case lasted. And we were doing battle with the Department of Children and Youth Services because she was a ward of the State. I did those -- I did -- that was Sister Sue Ann Shay, who you may remember -- Norman Janes: I do remember. Howard Orenstein: -- who also was a wonderful person. So I did selective casework. And I did primarily fundraising, outside representation. I mean, fundraising came from, I think, three or four different sources. So there's a lot of work involved in getting that money. Norman Janes: And the loss of funding, did that have to do with the Legal Services Corporation and its efforts to create a statewide program at that time? Howard Orenstein: No. Norman Janes: No? Howard Orenstein: It had to do with Legal Services -- it had to do with the Legal Services Corporation, but not the statewide program. Norman Janes: Okay. Howard Orenstein: It was simply they were cutting some of the funds. And the program was small enough then so that cut was really a very, very serious cut for the program. Norman Janes: Right. Do you remember -- I mean, Neighborhood Legal Services in Hartford did not become part of what we know as Connecticut Legal Services. And that was in -- I mean, that occurred in 1977. So you must have been involved. And how was Hartford able to stay out of that merger, do you remember? Howard Orenstein: It was -- it was -- well, Hartford and New Haven, it depends on who you talk to. Norman Janes: Well, I'm talking to you, so I was curious what you think. Howard Orenstein: In terms of what the desire, the wishes were of the Legal Services Corporation, we were told that we were not necessarily going to be included in that program because the Hartford and New Haven program as stand-alone programs were not -- they weren't included in those plans. There was some indication to both me and also Bruce who was running the New Haven program that maybe that wasn't quite so. And so there was quite a -- quite a long struggle -- Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: -- to maintain the independence of the program. Norman Janes: Right. Interesting times. Howard Orenstein: Yes. Norman Janes: Yeah. Well -- and actually, one of the questions we've been asking is about funding. And since you were involved in fundraising, how much did where the funds came from and how they had to be acquired, how much of any impact did that have on the nature of the legal work, or -- I don't want to say how aggressive the work, but what was the impact on what the folks on the front lines were doing from funding and lack of it and where it came from? Howard Orenstein: It's -- that's a good question. The -- I don't know if you were -- you're a little younger than I am, so I don't know whether you were around when the Green Amendment came in? Norman Janes: Yes. Howard Orenstein: Remember that? Norman Janes: Yeah. Howard Orenstein: Well, we were doing criminal work in those days. Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: And when the Green Amendment came in, we couldn't do criminal work. But you could do criminal work if you got funding somewhere else as long as you didn't use Legal Services' money. Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: That was one thing. We got community development block grant funds. That was from the city. And that primarily was, I think, consumer, family, housing, and senior citizen. I think that's what that was. I'm not sure I remember that right. We got some money from the community chest. That was a broader kind of money. We got Title XX money, which we used for a nursing house -- a nursing home ombudsman and for training of lawyers. Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: So each piece of the money did have scope of services attached to them. And so it did affect us in that way. I wouldn't say it affected us at all in terms of the -- nobody put any brakes on what the lawyers were doing, put it that way. And, in fact, you know, we're going back to the bar question, how the bar received this. The bar was very, very, very determined that Legal Services lawyers in Hartford would be independent; would make independent judgments and not be controlled, for example, by the community action program or by the neighborhood people, all right. And so that turned out to be a plus in that sense because nobody was attacking our ability to do whatever anybody else would do as a lawyer for a client. Norman Janes: That's really an interesting story because it really is so different than the experience in some other parts, even of Connecticut, and, of course, different in other parts of the country as well. Howard Orenstein: Yes. Norman Janes: So of -- you mentioned the names of a number of people who you work with. Who among them were the most memorable? Or maybe who would be -- who among them would you consider to be mentors? Howard Orenstein: Well, certainly before I got to Legal Aid, Leonard Shein who was my boss at the first firm I worked at. I honestly believe that what I learned at his firm helped me a great deal in my Legal Services and my Legal Aid work because there is a -- there was a climate, as I think you know, sort of like the clinical versus the classroom teacher in law school. Some people draw a distinction between the two. I never have. I've always thought they were the same. Norman Janes: Sure. Howard Orenstein: But Legal Aid lawyers and quote regular lawyers there, that was kind of a feeling. I never had that problem because I had been a quote regular lawyer with a firm that most people knew about was a good firm. And also I felt -- I always felt very comfortable with the members of the bar who were on the board and the members of the bar that worked as volunteers in the program; things like that. So Leonard was a help. Bill Graham was a real mentor. Bill was an African-American lawyer. I think there were only two in the state, both Bill Sparlow who became a state senator and a judge, and Bill. And then later Scott Novell came along with Gene Spear. And I think Bob Glass downstate, there weren't that many black lawyers in the state. And Bill not only taught me law, he taught me about a lot of other things because we were working very heavily in the black community, and it was important for me to be sensitized to what I was doing. And I didn't have the background or the understanding to do that without his help. His help was wonderful in that regard. Let's see. Other mentors. Those -- John Newman certainly was a big help. But I would say Bill Mohler. Bill Mohler was giant in the law in Connecticut. Norman Janes: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Howard Orenstein: And he took a liking to me. He had been the fellow who taught us the bar. He and Bill had a bar prep course, and I took his course. And all along the way, all through my life, he seemed to pop into the picture. There was a time when Bridgeport was under attack by a very well known politician in Connecticut. And I think Jim Trowbridge was running the program then. I'm not sure if I'm right about that. I was appointed by the state bar with William K. Cole of Robinson Robinson Cole, and Bill Mohler, the three of us, to investigate that. Well, Bill made me the chair and he had me write the report. I mean, that was something. Norman Janes: Yeah. Howard Orenstein: Isn't it? And, of course, we found, as we should have found, that Bridgeport hadn't really done anything wrong, right. He was a great mentor; a great mentor. Norman Janes: So you obviously have had a very long career since your time in Legal Aid, Legal Services. How has that career been influenced or been impacted by your work with Legal Aid and Legal Services? Howard Orenstein: A profound effect. You know, you're at the work longer than I am, and it gets into your guts. You know, I grew up in a neighborhood where I saw a lot of things that I didn't think were just. And I decided to become a lawyer when I was ten. And I wanted to be a Legal Aid lawyer a lot when Bill Graham said to me, after I had spent two years representing wealthy people, he said any client that comes into the Legal Aid office when you work here, you understand, they've just put down a hundred thousand dollar retainer and you treat them accordingly, all right. That was really -- that stayed with me, and it taught me a lot about Bill Graham. Ever since I left Legal Services in terms of formal -- I mean, I went into legal education and I taught constitutional law, civil procedure, trial advocacy, appellate advocacy. So it you stays with you. I mean, the values, particularly what you learn, what you -- you know, I learned as much from the community people that I worked with as I did from lawyers because the people I worked with in the community, first of all, were very, very intelligent, and they'd seen an awful lot that I had never seen. They could help me analyze legal problems differently than I might have analyzed them in a law school setting. And they also helped me to articulate the positions of my clients better than I could have done it with just the formal education. So that was -- I think the answer is it was a profound effect. Norman Janes: I mean, and I really appreciate that, that your last comment there of what you learned from clients and folks who live in those communities you're trying to serve and how we, in some sense, really are interlopers, and we need to be able to speak for them. But not what we think, but what they think. You said it I much better than I think -- Howard Orenstein: I had a meeting with a woman. If she ever sees this tape, she'll probably kill me. But her name was Ida McKinney. Ida came out of the neighborhood and sat on the Community Action Program board. My first day on the job at Neighborhood Legal Services Ida came in and said to me, "What do you think you're here for?" And I said, "Well, I'm going to take my education, training and experience and apply it to the problems of my clients." And she said, "No, that's not why you're here. You're here to help the client do what the client wants." And, of course, she's absolutely right. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, let alone any other reason. But I never forgot it. And I never forgot Ida. I still think of Ida. Norman Janes: Yeah. Yeah. She was a wise woman for sure. Howard Orenstein: Yes. Norman Janes: I mean, I've sort of run through the questions that we're trying to ask of everybody, but I want to give you a chance, if there's something else that you think that posterity ought to remember and know about Neighborhood Legal Services, or about your career, or the clients, or the experience that you had, again, particularly in those earlier days? Howard Orenstein: I'm just looking at -- I have notes here, but I think that I'm interested in -- just take another second here. Norman Janes: Sure. Howard Orenstein: We started in the 60s. If you don't talk about Legal Services and you just talk about the 60s, everybody understands the context that we were working in. Norman Janes: Right. Howard Orenstein: It's the Civil Rights movement, whether it was the women's movement, whether it was the environmental movement, the consumer movement. Ralph Nader comes out of Hartford. It was a very dynamic time. And you would know better than I, and I'd been interested because I've heard a little bit about this from friends back in Connecticut. I don't know whether the support that Legal Services got, at least when I was there, whether that's still true. And if it isn't, that would be a very sad commentary. Norman Janes: Actually, it's interesting that there is a great deal of really genuine political support for Legal Services in Connecticut. I find that really interesting because when I started in Talen Windham (ph), of course, we were really in hostile territory and fought not only with the local bar association but with the state government and everybody. But most of the funding for Legal Services in Connecticut now, it really is generated by the legislature, some direct appropriations, some -- the increase in filing fees in the last several years when the IOLTA funds took a dive when the recession started, the state legislature and the government -- the governor have stepped in and so that the funding is not quite as much as it had been under IOLTA, but relatively there. And at least the integrity of the Legal Aid programs has been able to be maintained. And it's because there's some real good political support. And the Connecticut Bar Association and lawyers in Connecticut are all genuinely very, very supportive. And I think that has made the difference in Connecticut, just as the ABA has made the difference in protecting the national Legal Aid network. Howard Orenstein: I'm really glad to hear that. That's great. Norman Janes: Yep. Yep. Howard Orenstein: You've had a long career yourself. You know, you and I didn't really know each other. Norman Janes: No. No. Howard Orenstein: We're back here, but I've heard your name over the years. And you've had a long career in the field. I should be asking you the questions instead of you asking me. Norman Janes: Well, we're going to try to get me on tape, too, so that I can tell a few stories and recall the old days as well. But you're absolutely right, it's certainly an interesting, interesting career, no question about it. And wouldn't have had it any other way. Howard Orenstein: Yes. Norman Janes: And we can both be grateful for the opportunities that we had -- Howard Orenstein: Yes. Norman Janes: -- to do what we did. Howard Orenstein: I want to just second that. And I was a law school dean for quite a while. I used to tell all my students it's a privilege to be a lawyer. Norman Janes: Absolutely. Howard Orenstein: It's a privilege. When you know where I came from, where my family came from, and what they saw in their lives, to be actually -- for somebody to hand you a license and say go do justice, that's a privilege. And I have never forgotten what a privilege it is. Norman Janes: No. No. Absolutely. Well, Howard, thank you for your time -- Howard Orenstein: Thank you. Norman Janes: -- and the work that you did, and your contribution to the effort that we've all made together. Thank you very much. Howard Orenstein: Thank you. Pleasure. Norman Janes: Thank you.