Oral history by former director of ABA Division for Legal Service, and chief counsel to ABA SCLAID committee.
Oral history details
| Storyteller: | Terry Brooks |
|---|---|
| Interviewer: | Houseman, Alan |
| Date of interview: | Nov 9, 2016 |
| Where relates to: | National and Wisconsin |
| Topics: | Access to justice and American Bar Association (ABA) |
| Law type: | Civil |
| Collection: | NEJL |
| Length: | 0:48:04 |
Full text of transcript
Download PDF: TranscriptConsortium for the National Equal Justice Library Oral History Collection
Interview with Terry Brooks
Conducted by Alan Houseman
November 9, 2016
Alan Houseman:
This is an interview with Terry Brooks. He’s the director of the Legal Services Division of the American Bar Association. This interview was conducted on Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at the downtown Indianapolis Marriott. The interviewer is Alan Houseman for the National Equal Justice Library. Terry, let’s begin with an overview of your history, essentially, where you were born, where you went to law school and the jobs you’ve held in college, law school, whatever.
Terry Brooks:
I was born in the Chicago area in 1953. I am an adopted child, but I was adopted within a month of being born. The family that adopted me was very much a blue-collar family. They ran a series of small businesses: dry cleaner, restaurants. I grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago mostly and moved frequently. For some reason they were nomads. They didn’t move far. They moved from suburb to suburb, but they moved around a lot. I went to college at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. After college, I worked for a couple of years in a youth home north of that city. I stayed in that area. After that, I was inspired really from the experience of working with the kids in the youth home, and seeing the lousy representation they were getting from their lawyers, to go to law school. I started at DePaul in Chicago. I was not very happy with that school. It was very much business oriented, and I was more interested in work in the public arena, and so I transferred to the University of Wisconsin Law School and graduated from there in 1980.
Alan Houseman:
What jobs have you held?
Terry Brooks:
During law school, I worked at the American Judicature Society on judicial ethics issues. After I graduated from law school, I practiced law briefly in a small firm in Baraboo, Wisconsin, which is just north of Madison. I had clerked for a judge in Baraboo during law school, and during the time I practiced, I accepted quite a number of public defender appointments. Having graduated in 1980, jobs in civil legal services were scarce with Ronald Reagan having taken office and having attempted to gut the program. I then returned to Chicago and worked again at American Judicature on judicial ethics issues and was the editor of a digest of the law in that area. Then I moved to the American Bar Association and worked briefly in the ethics unit. Then I moved over to the ABA’s Legal Services division, and I’ve been there since 1985.
Alan Houseman:
You touched on this a second ago, but what led you to go in to the American Judicature Society work and then the American Bar Association work? What factors, what background led you there? You covered it a bit but just elaborate on it.
Terry Brooks:
Having read your questions in advance, I thought about that, and I’ve really been unable to come up with where the social consciousness came from. My parents were pretty conservative people. I suspect my mother voted for Donald Trump yesterday. My one victory was that I did persuade my father to vote for George McGovern in 1972. But I was always drawn to the law as a helping profession and to social causes.
Alan Houseman:
I now want to focus on your work at the ABA Legal Services Division. First, describe the division and the various committees.
Terry Brooks:
I moved from the ethics unit of the ABA to the Legal Services Division, first as the staff director for what’s now called the Center for Pro Bono in about 1987. There were some changes in staffing, and I became division director shortly thereafter in ’88, maybe ’89. It was more serendipity than being highly qualified for the position, I would have to say, other than having a passion for the work and enjoying the opportunity to work with some great leaders in the ABA. There really wasn’t any career path that I had thought through. I have been the director of the staff department which is called the Division for Legal Services since that time. The department encompasses now 10 committees, and seven of those are clearly focused on aspects of how poor and moderate-income people obtain access to the justice system. The others are outliers which are in the department more by historical accident than anything, and they focus on things like malpractice insurance for lawyers and assistance for lawyers who are suffering from alcoholism or other substance impairments.
Alan Houseman:
What are the major committees that you work with and serve? One is the Standing Committee of the Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, which we call SCLAID. Talk a little bit about that committee, its importance, and some of the things that it does.
Terry Brooks:
I should mention that there was another committee that was important within the ABA hierarchy called the Consortium on Legal Services and the Public which, in the bureaucratic world of the ABA, was the actual sponsor of the Center for Pro Bono. It was really the committee that was formed to be a home for Reece Smith who was at one point president of the ABA and whose major emphasis during that term was saving the Legal Services Corporation and stimulating more pro bono by private lawyers. I staffed that committee when I first came in to the Legal Services Division and then later moved on to staffing the Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants. One of the things that I regret is that you didn’t have the opportunity to interview my predecessor, Lynn Sterman, who was the staff person for that committee, and who I really credit as a significant mentor for me and many others.
Alan Houseman:
Me too.
Terry Brooks:
I worked also with the late Bob Evans who was the head of our Government Affairs office. The two of them, in conjunction with you, Alan, and many others in NLADA, really were the ones who saved the Legal Services Corporation from extinction during several troubled periods. Since the mid-’90s, I’ve been the primary staff person for the Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants, and have shepherded it through several administrations.
Alan Houseman:
What does it focus on?
Terry Brooks:
It focuses on civil legal aid and also on improving indigent defense systems. It has focused principally at the national level and at the systemic level and not at the development of the substantive law in either of those arenas. It has, in the indigent defense arena for many years, sponsored a technical assistance service that would go to the states and assist the states and advocates in the states in improving their systems dealing with things such as fixed price contracts for indigent defense, private counsel, and other things that really impeded quality delivery of service. On civil legal services, the committee was the center point within the ABA for advocacy for creating the Legal Services Corporation, preserving it during troubled times, and urging adequate funding for the corporation.
Alan Houseman:
You’ve been involved in a number of other things that relate to this work. I’m going to ask you about a couple and then you may want to add things that I don’t know about or forgot about. One is the legal needs study. Describe what that was and what it tried to do.
Terry Brooks:
The ABA conducted a second national study of the legal needs of the public in the early ’90s. The interviewing was done in ’92 I think, and the results published in ’93. To credit another great leader who we’ve recently lost, Esther Lardent was really the person whose brain child this was. This replicated, in some ways, a study that had been done in the ’70s by Barbara Kern at the American Bar Foundation. It was born out of a desire to simply understand what the public’s legal needs were and to try and define those with a little bit more specificity than was then known.
Alan Houseman:
Did this legal needs study lead to other legal needs studies?
Terry Brooks:
At the time we did it, we invited the states that were interested in doing additional sampling within their jurisdictions to conduct state-specific legal needs studies. As you know, the sample size for a national study is about 1,500 interviews. That’s not enough to get you scientific validity at the state level because there wouldn’t be enough interviews in any of the states. So we offered the states the opportunity to buy in and do their own studies, and several states did that. The questionnaire for the study has formed the template for a number of states which have done similar studies in the intervening years. To this day it remains, I think, a valid starting point for a lot of states. I think that the study that was done recently in Washington State used that as a starting point, modified to bring it up to date. But I think the study was very valuable in developing that kind of template for others to use.
Alan Houseman:
SCLAID, maybe some broader thing, has done some reports on Gideon.
Terry Brooks:
“Gideon’s Broken Promise” was a report that was done after a series of hearings conducted around the country in collaboration with NLADA and others to try and tease out a little bit more about what was happening at the state and local level with regard to indigent defense systems. That resulted in a national study that was published and helped to spark some changes in state systems and also was a foundation for Ten Principles for indigent defense systems which was established as ABA policy in the ’90s. I don’t remember the exact date.
One of the things that, in looking at your questions and thinking about all of this, that I just need to remark on, is the number of other great people who really I’ve more supported. I don’t see myself as a visionary in this field. I see myself as more of an implementer and a behind-the-scenes person. I give great credit to Jim Newhart who really was the person who came up with what he called the Ten Commandments for indigent defense, and we said that’s too religious. It needs to be something that’s a little more universal and renamed it the Ten Principles and refined it somewhat and adopted it as ABA policy. I think it’s become a great tool for improving indigent defense systems. It has some flaws, and we’re thinking about updating it right now, but it’s become a great tool as the guiding principles for what a good public defense system should look like.
Alan Houseman:
Another thing that you were involved with in 2005 and ’06 was a commission that was set up by the then-president of the ABA, Michael Greco. It did two things which you should talk about. One was Civil Gideon, and the other was a set of principles on civil legal aid.
Terry Brooks:
The anecdote behind that is, I think, interesting in that … again, serendipity. I wrote a speech for Dennis Archer to give at Georgetown at the invitation of Father Drinan in about 2003 or ’04. There was a terrible ice storm in Washington and then ABA President Dennis Archer couldn’t get there, so he never delivered the speech. It sat there in my drawer.
Mike Greco came around a couple years later. There had been a vacancy in the office of the ABA president, and he didn’t have speech writer. So he calls on me to prepare something for him. I didn’t really focus on the fact that he was to deliver this speech to the Alabama Law Foundation which is about the least likely place on Earth to send somebody to talk about creating a new civil right to counsel. I took the speech which had urged some of the principles that had been articulated by Bobby Kennedy during his time as attorney general and polished it a little bit more. I made it into a speech about civil right to counsel, and Mike delivered it to thunderous applause in Alabama.
That was the start of the great adventure of creating that commission and developing the ABA policy on civil right to counsel in 2006. It has formed the foundation for a number of developments including the establishment of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel and a national movement, really, to try and pursue that as a strategy. I have to give great credit to a number of other people, Deborah Gardner, Debbie Perluss and others who were already in active in trying to pursue such a right and who helped provide me with all of the intellectual capital I needed to create a movement within the ABA.
Alan Houseman:
That commission also developed a set of Ten Principles on state delivery of civil legal services.
Terry Brooks:
Which proved a lot more challenging, as you know, to do and which have never gained the traction of the defender Ten Principles. I’ve never really been able to put my finger on exactly why that traction was never achieved. I credit you, Alan, as the person who really provided the intellectual impetus for that and a lot of the drafting for that. I think they remain as ABA policy and is a very good succinct statement of what a civil justice system in a state ought to look like. But, as I said, we have not had as much occasion to use that to good effect.
Alan Houseman:
One of the things that the ABA has done under several titles is try to work with states in developing funding and in developing access to justice commissions. Why don’t you talk a little bit about that?
Terry Brooks:
The funding piece, again, came from Esther Lardent as the person who conceptualized it. She wanted to somehow get the Bar more engaged in fundraising for legal services. Mary McClymont was then at the Ford Foundation and provided us with some startup funding to create a project around that to gather information and to try to urge legal aid programs to diversify their funding base. It was really prescient when I think back. I know there were others who were also urging legal aid programs to diversify their funding. But we were in an era where the Legal Services Corporation was the principal funder. Many of the more sophisticated legal aid programs, particularly in urban areas, had also identified other funding sources, but a lot of them hadn’t. So I think it was a combination of the ABA and NLADA and CLASP and others all working together that helped move the field as whole in the direction of looking at more state and local sources as ways of sustaining their operations.
That project ultimately grew into the project that we still operate, which is really the only source nationally of information on all of the funding sources for civil legal aid. Because we have been doing that since the late ’90s, we have some great longitudinal information and are able to identify trends and identify the ripest sources for states to tap. On a parallel track, the Legal Services Corporation’s call for what they called state planning created a need in all of the states for legal aid programs to conduct statewide assessments of the way they provided the services that they provided and also fostered a move toward merger of those programs. That state planning system was something that the ABA tried to support and make a positive thing.
A lot of the folks in the field saw it as more of a negative push toward mergers. We tried to work with NLADA to make it more of a positive, proactive self-assessment. So we developed a staff position or consulting position to support that which ultimately grew into what is now our Resource Center for Access to Justice Initiatives. The state planning urged by LSC faded away in the late ’90s and early 2000s, but it had given rise, in many of the states, to a core of leaders among the judiciary and the Bar and legal aid that worked together to try and improve the systems within the states. That’s coalesced into access to justice commissions. Then the ABA, through the leadership of Bill Whitehurst and with the help of Mike Greco, established this ABA resource center to try and support that movement and move it along.
I should also mention Bob Eccles, who became our consultant midway through that process and who really had great vision on developing that community of commissions and providing support in a central place for them all to turn to to coordinate their work.
Alan Houseman:
Another example of something that you’ve been involved with and that SCLAID’s overseeing was the initial and subsequent development of standards for civil legal aid. So talk a little bit about that.
Terry Brooks:
The initial standards were, I think, 1961, and I think they were lifted from NLADA actually. Many of the things that the ABA has done have borrowed heavily or outright — I wouldn’t say theft — but have really been outright repurposing of groundwork that had been done by NLADA or others. The standards were developed first in ’61 and I think, then, redone in, now you’re going to test my memory, ’71 maybe and then ’73 and then maybe in ’91. Then we redid them in 2005 or ’06.
Alan Houseman:
’05 and ’06.
Terry Brooks:
The committee this year, it’s just about to launch an effort to assess, it’s been 10 years, so whether they’re in need of another revision. One of the challenges, I think, for the ABA is to figure out where it fits. That’s really been my challenge in recent years because so many other great leaders have emerged. There was a period of time, I think, where the ABA was more in the lead on these things often in partnership with NLADA. There was almost a leadership track through NLADA into the ABA. People like Jack Curtin, who was president of the ABA and chair of SCLAID, had previously been president of NLADA I think. That was part of the leadership track. American Judicature was also on that path. Sandy D’Alemberte came through American Judicature and then president of ABA. I forgot where I was going with that. What was the question again?
Alan Houseman:
It was about the ABA’s role in standards.
Terry Brooks:
The ABA’s role, I think, during some of the more troubled times for civil legal aid was really to provide national leadership and a place for people to coalesce to challenge administrations which were hostile and that sort of thing. In recent years it’s become, I think, a little murkier where the ABA can best use its influence and imprimateur. But certainly setting standards throughout the entire period has been a significant role that the ABA could play. Institutions like the US Supreme Court are probably more likely to cite to an ABA standard than a standard of NLADA or others which are perceived more as trade groups. So ABA issued criminal justice standards, the Ten Principles of an indigent defense system, and the civil legal aid standards. SCLAID also developed standards for monitoring and evaluation of providers of civil and defender services which were useful during a period of time where some of the entities were conducting very intrusive monitoring.
We recently developed standards on language access in courts which have proven to be a good tool and have been used to great effect by the Department of Justice in fostering greater language access in courts around the country.
Alan Houseman:
Just to get it on the record, what are the other committees beside SCLAID that you oversee? You mentioned a couple that were not really within the access to justice frame, but what are the other committees just so we have them?
Terry Brooks:
The principal ones in the access to justice frame are Commission on Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA), the Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service. Then there’s a Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services which focuses on moderate-income people or the people slightly above the poverty line up into the fourth quintile of income. There are also committees on Lawyer Referral and Information Service which work with all the Bar-sponsored public interest-focused lawyer referral services. There’s a Standing Committee on Group & Prepaid Legal Services which works with the legal insurance industry. There’s a Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel which works on trying to enhance services to people who are in the military and therefore don’t have ready access to the civil legal aid system for civilians. There are other committees. There’s a Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs that works with the Bar-sponsored programs around the country that assist lawyers with alcoholism and substance abuse and mental health issues. There’s a Committee on Lawyers’ Professional Liability. There’s a Committee on Paralegals. Did I mention 10? Does that add up to 10?
Alan Houseman:
I want to discuss a couple of other things that I know you’ve been involved with. One was, I think, I hope I’m right, that you were involved with some of the work that LSC has done on the justice gap. They did a couple studies in the justice gap.
Terry Brooks:
They have, and I have to say I think I had a pretty small role in that. One of the things that LSC wanted to put forth as one of the measures of the justice gap was the number of lawyers available to a poor person in civil matters versus the number of lawyers available to other people in the population. I worked really within the ABA to ferret out the various statistics that we had on numbers of lawyers to create that comparison. I did that in both iterations of LSC’s justice gap study.
Alan Houseman:
The ABA, and you mentioned this early, but I just want to pin it down, not that you did this yourself always, but you did some of it, has worked with LSC on regulations. Obviously the ABA has also been a major player in legislation around LSC reauthorization and appropriations, and you’ve been involved with that. There may have been other ABA players like Bob Evans you mentioned early, but you’ve been involved with some of that.
Terry Brooks:
Correct.
Alan Houseman:
Talk a little bit about some of the things the ABA had done in those areas.
Terry Brooks:
During my tenure working with the SCLAID committee, I haven’t had a great deal of involvement on the legislative front. During the tenure of Lynn Sterman and Bob Evans, they obtained funding within the ABA for another staff position that was to focus exclusively on LSC. That has changed and evolved a little bit, but somebody was hired on Bob Evan’s staff in the DC office, and I should mention that I’m in the Chicago office, to work on advocacy for LSC. Since that time, that function has resided largely in the DC office with some input from myself and members of the standing committee, but the hiring of that staff person was a turning point in that regard.
The committee is still the place in the ABA that works on developing the budget recommendation that the ABA has for LSC to pursue. That changed, too, because it used to be that the ABA would go on the Hill and testify in support of a budget recommendation. But the Congress changed its approach and no longer hears from outside advocacy organizations about the budget. It only has an agency hearing, so we now make our recommendation to LSC which then makes its own determination of an appropriate budget to seek. But I remain involved in developing that advocacy that now goes through LSC regarding their budget.
With respect to regulations, the standing committee does remain the place within the ABA and has an unusual grant within the ABA the authority to develop comments on LSC regulations and serves as a watchdog on issues that might either have a dramatic effect on the civil legal aid field or have any implications for involvement of the private bar in delivering legal services to the poor. Those are the two criteria that we use informally to decide whether the ABA should jump in to discussions with LSC around regulatory changes.
Alan Houseman:
One of the roles that I think SCLAID plays when there are new board members for posts, you have a [inaudible ??] role.
Terry Brooks:
That’s a very good way to put it. The ABA and the SCLAID committee became concerned throughout the 1980s that the administration at that time was appointing people to the LSC board who did not seem to have the best interest of the Legal Services Corporation at heart. So the ABA asserted that it would evaluate the nominees to that board and developed a procedure for that doing that modeled largely on the work that the ABA has long done with respect to nominees for federal judicial slots.
There’s a key difference, though. The ABA gets the names of potential judicial nominees before they’re announced and therefore has the opportunity to guide an administration away from a nominee that would be troublesome. We don’t get the LSC nominees’ names in advance, and so any recommendation that we’re making must be made directly to the Senate. When the Senate is not in the hands of people who are friendly to LSC, they have not tended to pay much attention to what the ABA has to say, unfortunately. We’ve continued to do that. We will do that with the nominees to the LSC board assuming there are some coming from the new administration.
Alan Houseman:
One final thing just to mention is every year there’s an event in Washington where Bar leaders from around the country come, and I know you’re somewhat involved with that.
Terry Brooks:
It’s now called ABA Day in Washington. It spans three days. Actually it was built on a model that was created by Reece Smith and Bob Evans much to Bob Evans’ chagrin. He rued the day that it happened back in 1980 of what they called the March on Washington at that point to try and save the Legal Services Corporation from the, then administration’s desire to sunset it. I think the march was less than 100 people. But the leadership of the ABA remained fascinated with that model. There were a number of years not having any event in DC. But it was revived sometimes in the ’90s and continues to this day as a signature event of the ABA, bringing lawyers to Washington to lobby on behalf of issues that are of interest to the legal profession. One thing that has been a perennial issue, to the credit of the ABA, has been advocacy for funding for Legal Services Corporation.
Alan Houseman:
Now I want to ask a philosophic question. I’m interested, as somebody who’s been a long time observer of civil legal aid and access to justice issues through many of these committees you just mentioned. What your thoughts are about the future of access to justice and civil legal aid and pro bono, and how you would like to see that go or what you think should happen? I’m not trying to pin you down and have you say something that’s against ABA policy, and I understand that potential issue. I’m curious just to hear your thoughts about where this is all going or where you’d like to see it go.
Terry Brooks:
I think I probably should have made clear at the very outset that I’m speaking on behalf of myself and not on behalf of the American Bar Association. I’m not authorized to be a spokesperson for the ABA, but certainly in answering your philosophical question I need to make that clear. Where should it go? It depends on which way the political winds are blowing, does it not? In an ideal world I think there would be federal involvement in both civil legal aid and indigent defense. It’s ironic that there is a Legal Services Corporation, and credit to you and others who worked to create it, when there’s no federal right to counsel on civil matters. But there’s no federal center for supporting indigent defense systems even though there’s a federal right to counsel in criminal matters. Ideally, the federal government would have a role. I think it’s pretty clear from the politics and the practicalities of funding that that role has to be only part of the puzzle and that states need to also have a role, and philanthropy and private giving needs to have a role in supporting those systems.
Alan Houseman:
Do you have thoughts about pro bono in the future? I mean it’s a big part of the ABA. You have a pro bono committee that’s a pretty prominent committee. Reece Smith certainly put ABA and pro bono on the map. Any connection between those two?
Terry Brooks:
Pro bono, they’re volunteers. They are amateurs in a sense. I mean they’re lawyers and often very good lawyers, but the people who are professionals in the delivery of civil legal services to the poor and indigent defense services to the poor are much more schooled in poverty law in those arenas and much more able to delivery those services efficiently. Pro bono can serve as a useful supplement. I think the genius of Reece Smith, whether or not he knew it at the time, was that it got the private Bar heavily invested and interested and understanding what it’s like to deliver services to people who are poor, and it helped the Bar understand the need and overcome its fear that this was a way of stealing business from them really. I think the intangible benefits of it have really far outweighed the actual services that are provided.
One of the huge frustrations, of course, is figuring out a way to measure the amount of pro bono that’s being done out there and particularly the amount that’s being done in service to poor people with what I might call their everyday legal problems. The large firms remain very invested in taking on major civil rights litigation and other litigation of that sort but aren’t probably so focused on doing family law cases. Many of the members of the Bar who are in solo and small firms settings are the lawyers who have historically, at least anecdotally, been those who provide help to the poor through pro bono, but they don’t all do through it any kind of organized program, so we don’t really have a way of measuring what’s being done out there. I think there’s a lot of lawyers who think of their uncollectible bills as pro bono and a lot of lawyers who are providing assistance to friends and family. Whether or not they think of that as pro bono or not, I don’t know.
It’s frustrating to try and get our arms around how much pro bono is really going on out there. That impedes us from really doing more to stimulate it because we don’t have good data on what’s there. We don’t have a baseline, and so we don’t really have a starting point to measure against in terms of whether any of the things that we’re doing are doing any good. That’s been a huge frustration for me. We’ve developed all of these techniques to incentivize pro bono, things like giving CLE credit for doing pro bono, and we don’t really have a way of measuring whether those things are doing what we hope they’ll do. To me in many ways, pro bono remains a mystery, but I think it’s also something that the ABA is in a unique position to help foster and support.
Alan Houseman:
A final question, I think it’s final, is are there other things that you’d like to talk about that you’ve done that relate to civil legal aid or indigent criminal defense that we’ve missed in this conversation? Are there gaps that I’ve left out either because I didn’t know or didn’t prepare well?
Terry Brooks:
In your preview of topics, you talked about things like limited scope representation. I know you talked to my colleague and law school classmate, Will Hornsby, about that — use of non-lawyers, self-representation. You asked about the role of full representation. I think that’s a source of frustration to many of us, the sort of movement toward the do-it-yourself approach to helping poor people with their legal problems. Many of us of our generation, and I’m a little younger than you but not a lot, came into this through the lens of the War on Poverty and the desire to use laws and instrument of social change. Things have changed and evolved a lot away from that vision. That’s a source of frustration. I don’t know if we’ll ever get back to that as the construct behind what we do rather than trying to deal with everyday legal problems one at a time which is, given the dimension of the need, a losing battle.
Another great frustration I would say is around the legal needs studies. I won’t say the studies overstate the need, but they tend to be tools for advocacy rather than really tools for understanding and responding to the need. The problem is that when we continue to say over the many years now that we have an 80% gap between the amount of need and the amount of funding, it sounds like it’s a gap that can never be filled. I’ve always wondered whether we might not find a way to put a more positive spin on it and try to find a way to articulate that gap in a way that it would seem more of a gap that we could someday seek to fill. Because I don’t think any legislator or any Bar leader out there wants to throw money into a hole that is bottomless. But if we could show that that hole has a bottom somewhere nearer to the surface, we might find that people are more willing to try and devote scarce resources to filling in.
Alan Houseman:
Interesting. Any other thoughts?
Terry Brooks:
No, I think that covers it.
Alan Houseman:
Okay.
Terry Brooks:
I’m proud to have had an opportunity to work with you and so many others and hope we have a few more years to do that.
Alan Houseman:
Yes, it’s been good. Thank you very much, Terry.
Terry Brooks:
Thanks.
END