The unhappiness with Kirp was of course augmented by the dismissals in January, but tensions had been mounting long before that over his failure to consult the staff about basic policy and case decisions.

"It's essentially a one-man operation," one attorney said Tuesday. "Nothing goes beyond Kirp, including the mail, that he doesn't want to. We have very few clients or corporate contacts as a result; how can we feel involved in the Center?"

The charge extends to Kirp's creating a strict hierarchy at the CLE, "People felt treated like servants," another lawyer said. "He [Kirp] tells us we should work on our own, but it's hard when he's the Center's sole voice to the outside."

"I don't see myself as a dictator," Kirp replied. "I simply do not think there is a problem of too much directorship at the Center."

Something must be wrong, however, if-as is the case at the CLE-over half of the staff lawyers fail to return to the Center for two consecutive years.

The most open conflict at the CLE is that between Kirp and Arons. Arons is one of two original staff attorneys still at the Center, but as one lawyer put it, "he and Kirp don't even talk to one another anymore." Arons says he has been phased out of the decision-making process by Kirp's "hierarchy," while Kirp reportedly thinks Arons is trying to make a public issue out of his dismissal.

One question which has arisen is that of how Kirp decided to dismiss five attorneys on the basis of output when four of the five had been at the Center for barely four months. All but Arons arrived in September.

Kirp explained his position, "I simply found that these lawyers did not fit into the long-range plans for the Center and, knowing the job market is tight, I wanted to give them five months to find other positions. Most places would have given them six weeks' notice and said goodbye."

But perhaps the biggest question in everyone's mind is that of where the Center is now headed. Again, no one seems certain other than Kirp himself.

When the CLE was founded in September of 1969, there was some doubt as to whether a University-sponsored center should initiate litigations, especially in the area of poverty and education cases.

Midway through 1970, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO)-which provides Federal funding for the Center through Harvard-changed the Center's funding from a Research and Development grant to a litigation-oriented Legal Services grant. Since then, the CLE has become increasingly involved in litigation.

However, Kirp withdrew the Center from a desegregation case in Detroit last November, saying that lengthy litigation was outside the CLE's line of work.

Building an Ivory Tower

Although a confrontation by the staff-which had not been consulted prior to the decision-resulted in the Center's re-entering the case, some lawyers fear Kirp may be leaning toward research and away from community involvement.

"It's almost as if he's cleaning house, and that may mean a shift toward research papers and projects," one attorney at the CLE said.

Kirp maintains that "the Center's primary responsibility is in backing other legal services organizations and in litigation."

"I think the Center has done well in the brief time it has been seriously involved in litigation," Kirp said. "But with the experienced people I hope to bring in next year, we should be able to contribute to many more legal services cases throughout the country."

Reconsidering

Kirp is presently reconsidering two of the January dismissals, and has filled two of the vacated positions on the CLE staff.

The feeling of at least eight of the Center's staff members who signed a letter to Sacks asking for a review of the CLE leadership, however, seems to be that one more dismissal and several reinstatements are in order.

As one of the signers said Tuesday, "The idea of getting along with Kirp forestalls any serious attempt at providing new direction for the Center."