<Begin Segment 17>

TI: So going back to the case, how do you start? Where do you begin?

PN: Well, I started by going to San Francisco and meeting up with all the lawyers from the Asian Law Caucus, and tons of lawyers. And we started by them saying, "We're going to do a motion for consolidation of the Hirabayashi and Yasui cases, so all you have to do is be the lead attorneys in your respective jurisdictions for about six months and we'll bring this case, we'll bring the motions, we'll do a motion of consolidation, hopefully the court will grant it, and then we'll take on the burden of these cases." And so we said, "Fine."

TI: And before we get to some of these other, sort of, things that happened, I'm curious, the first time you went down to San Francisco, so here you had just mentioned you were earlier up in Portland trying to recruit some other Asian American lawyers and pretty much got nowhere there.

PN: Right.

TI: And then you go down to San Francisco and you meet another group of Asian American lawyers. And it seems like the reception is very different.

PN: Yes.

TI: So talk about what it felt like in that room in relationship to taking on these cases.

PN: Yeah, most of us were out of law school ten years or fewer years, and they were clearly people who were into these cases who just had a belief in them. They were not just Japanese Americans but Chinese Americans and Caucasians. So it felt like a big group of young people who were from the sixties who were gonna take on the case of their lifetime. And there was no precedent, so you didn't know what you were gonna do, so there was a lot of legal conversation, obviously, and how we were gonna do this, but there was a lot of socialization and drinking and having a great time. So a lot of camaraderie. So not just from San Francisco, but people from Seattle as well. So we all gathered, I think I might have been the only one from Oregon at that point, 'cause I hadn't gotten my legal team together. [Laughs] So it was great. It was great to meet other people and to get to know them and to work together and to see the passion and the fire and the horsepower, and the brilliant minds in the room. So it was pretty remarkable.

TI: Do you think the group knew what it was getting into when you guys were early on meeting, what it was gonna be like to do this?

PN: I don't think so. I don't think so, 'cause there was no precedent for it. But all of us probably had done some community organizing, I mean, Dale and other people had started the Asian Law Caucus. So we came out of an activist kind of background, and we went to law school for a reason, and we were now gonna have the ability and the opportunity to use our legal skills for our community. So we knew about civil rights from an African American perspective, we knew about the, were involved in the Asian American student movement. But to have cases for your own community is quite different. And to think about the privilege but also the burden and the responsibility and no precedent in these cases was pretty awesome. Because what if you messed up, you know? [Laughs] It's not a great feeling.

TI: Well, and as part of that thinking, one of the strategies of the group was to actually have three cases.

PN: Yes.

TI: Korematsu, Yasui, and Hirabayashi, and that you were the counsel for Yasui. So what did that mean in terms of coordinating or working with the Korematsu and Hirabayashi case?

PN: Well, at the time, Kathryn Bannai was the lead attorney for Hirabayashi. So, and Dale was the lead attorney for Korematsu, Dale and probably Peter Irons. And, well, at the beginning, I thought it meant that I would be the lead attorney for six months, and it would be consolidated and it would to go California. But it also meant that I had as my client a lawyer, which is different than Gordon or Fred. And also that I was his daughter's age. He was a Nisei and I was a Sansei, so there were all those kind of dynamics going on that were interesting. But it meant that my name was going to be on these pleadings and there were going to be decisions to be made as a lead attorney in a different jurisdiction than California or Washington. And so there would be some differences, just because in California, the ability to call a press conference and really publicize a case was quite different than a conservative jurisdiction like Oregon where you could be called an ethical violation or things like that. So there was a different legal/political climate and context of the Oregon case versus the California case and the Washington case.

TI: And so did the San Francisco people understand that? Did they understand that Oregon was different and that you had to do things differently in Oregon than in San Francisco?

PN: Yes and no. I mean, I think we understand that there are different jurisdictions, but I think as issues came up and we had to work through them, we didn't always see eye to eye on specific issues. And you know if you're the lawyer on the case that you have ultimate responsibility for that case, you have ultimate responsibility for your client, we took our roles seriously. And so, and I had been a criminal defense attorney, I had gone toe to toe, I had been in court every day for a year and a half, I mean, I knew how to go toe to toe with people. So in that sense, you knew what your role would be, and if you disagreed, you just had to disagree and keep working on it. It wasn't about social niceties, it really was about a legal case and you were responsible for it.

TI: Well, and it sounds like this case became even a bigger thing because you mentioned earlier, I think the plan was to consolidate the cases, but that didn't happen. They remained as individual cases. So that kept a lot of burden on you in terms of making things happen. So as that change happened, how did that change the dynamics in terms of your role with, say, San Francisco and Seattle?

PN: Then they were three separate cases, but we were working them jointly. The court said that they had to go to the courts of original jurisdiction, their original jurisdiction, so it was the Federal District Court of Oregon. Which we had filed in, but then had moved for consolidation. So that meant I had to get my legal team, I had to get a legal team together, and it also meant that I was gonna need some help and assistance, actually from -- and I got a lot of help and assistance from San Francisco. But it also meant, like, I think Peter had written a book at the time, and he was both the lead attorney on, one of the lead attorneys on Korematsu and he was also going around doing book signings and publicity about his book. And we had a pretty strict rule in Oregon about either press conferences or calling attention to your case to try to get it, to have a sway or to be, influence the decision of the case. And so we had some disagreements about that, 'cause Peter was also signed on as one of the attorneys on the Yasui case. And so one of the issues was, is what Peter is doing going to jeopardize the Oregon case? And I had Min, I presented him with that issue, I asked him to go talk with other lawyers, gave him suggestions, so that it wouldn't be a conflict on my side because I was working with Peter as well, and I wanted him to get independent counsel on whether or not he felt that he could continue to have Peter as an attorney on the Oregon case or not. So he, so Min did get independent counsel on that issue, and then decided that he was concerned about the possibility of it jeopardizing his case, and so I think he asked Peter to step down from being attorney, one of the attorneys of record on the case.

TI: And how did that go over with people?

PN: Well, I don't know exactly, but probably like a lead balloon. Because Peter had discovered these documents, he was front and center in the strategy of the cases and how to bring them, and had a huge voice and a huge role in them. And because it's a different sort of legal context in California, where it's much looser, lawyers can call press conferences, it's hard to understand the backwardness of a state like Oregon in that sense, and the conservativeness of a state like Oregon. And while we don't want people to take things personally, I can understand why it might be taken personally, it wasn't. It was just as a lawyer I felt like I at least needed to at least have my client protect his interests. So it didn't go over well. And again, you just have to make the decision, what are you going to do? What is the, what's the goal here? And the goal is I've got a client and he's got a case, and I've got to represent him to the best of my ability. And I did ask around, Derek was the dean there and he knew a lot of legal scholars, etcetera, etcetera. So that was the decision, we made that decision, I wasn't popular, but we just sort of moved on with it.

<End Segment 17> - Copyright © 2009 Densho. All Rights Reserved.