Politically connected Denver law and lobbying firm Isaacson Rosenbaum has been chosen as outside counsel for the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) as it prepares for next summer's event here.

The firm and one of its top attorneys -- Mark Grueskin, a Democrat and onetime legal counsel and legislative aide to former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm -- will help the committee navigate federal election rules and local laws, working with the DNCC's on-staff general counsel, Susana Carbajal.

"We're kind of a legal defensive secondary," Grueskin said. "We'll watch and see how things develop, and we'll help tackle whatever legal issues require more staffing or a different kind of expertise."

He said Isaacson Rosenbaum has identified 10 areas where the DNCC may need its help before and during the Aug. 25-28 convention, from contract negotiation and employment law to campaign finance rules "and just plain political advice."

One of the firm's key roles will be to help the DNCC comply with Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules covering convention operations, Carbajal said. "Because we receive federal funds, we do have to spend those funds according to the FEC and their regulations," she said.

It's customary for a party to hire a local law firm in the convention host city to help with on-site legal work. The assignment is considered a plum for the chosen firm -- and a sign of close ties between the firm and the party.

"We're awfully proud [to be chosen]," Grueskin said. "It's gratifying that ... they hired us because there are so many different kinds of things that our law firm can do that they might need."

Carbajal -- an attorney for the Austin, Texas, firm of Brown McCarroll and a former aide to President Bill Clinton -- was named DNCC general counsel in April. She said she recommended Isaacson Rosenbaum to her committee after interviewing several local attorneys and firms.

She said she wanted a firm with solid experience in election-finance and public-policy law as well as with good relations with local leaders, and Isaacson Rosenbaum offered both strengths.

"One of the main reasons we chose [the firm] is because of Mark Grueskin. ... He was a driving force in our selection," she said.

California can set its own standards on greenhouse-gas emissions from vehicles, a federal judge in Fresno has ruled, The San Jose Mercury News reports. The state still needs permission from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to implement the rules.

This is the second time this year that courts have ruled against the auto industry’s bid to stop regulation of tailpipe emissions by states. In September, a court decision in Vermont confirmed that states do have the ability to adopt California’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. Sixteen states comprising about 45 percent of all U.S. auto sales have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, California’s standards. The Vermont decision came on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last April saying the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

California has filed a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to act on California’s tailpipe emissions waiver request.

California is the only state that can set its own vehicle pollution standards because it began regulating air pollution before the EPA’s creation. Under the Clean Air Act, however, other states can select either California’s rules or federal ones.

Ellie Rommel was employed as John Duncan’s secretary when he was a partner at the law firm of Verrill Dana. She said she reported what she thought was questionable behavior by Duncan.

Duncan has since been fired from the firm after nearly 30 years.

Rommel told News 8 that she struggled over whether she should tell others what she knew.

"If I had to do it again, I know I would do it,” she said. “But I never dreamt it would be so difficult, so painful."

According to Rommel, she was wrongfully terminated at Verrill Dana after blowing the whistle on Duncan. She said she now plans to file a lawsuit against the firm.

Her attorney also is filing a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission.

A representative of Verrill Dana told News 8 that the firm appreciates Rommel “for bringing the situation to their attention” but added that the facts clearly show that Rommel was not fired.

Moriarty set aside 27.5 percent, or $15.8 million, for plaintiffs' legal fees, as well as an additional $2.2 million for plaintiff expenses.

Sprint Nextel, based in Reston, Va., but with operational headquarters in Overland Park, will pay $10 million of the settlement, with insurers paying the rest. The company has denied any wrongdoing, saying it settled the case to avoid continued legal costs.

Jay Eisenhofer, an attorney representing Dallas-based Carlson Capital LP, one of the lead plaintiffs, said he welcomed the outcome, especially as the case would have been heard in Sprint's hometown.

"The court recognized that Sprint's board did not live up to its fiduciary duties in the way it valued the company's tracking stocks to the detriment of common shareholders," Eisenhofer said.

The case came about after what was then Sprint Corp. decided to combine the two stocks that tracked the fortunes of its wireless and traditional wireline business divisions. Those stocks were divided in 1998 to reflect that the wireless division was just starting to grow and invest in wireless infrastructure while the business overseeing local and long-distance calls generated the bulk of the company's revenue.

By 2004, with most telecommunications companies selling bundles of wireless and land line services, Sprint officials decided to recombine the stocks, exchanging each of the wireless stock shares for half a share of the wireline stock.

Shareholders erupted, with half a dozen filing lawsuits claiming the company had shortchanged the value of the wireless stock and that company officials had manipulated the wireline business to the detriment of the wireless business.

The plaintiffs' attorneys hired experts who estimated the losses to shareholders ranged from $1.3 billion to $3.4 billion.

The settlement covers shareholders whose wireless shares were converted to combined shares on April 23, 2004, or who sold their wireless shares before that date and "were damaged thereby."

But eBay still hopes to avoid writing a check.

"We are disappointed with the court's order and we plan to appeal it," the San Jose-based company said in a statement Wednesday.

EBay believes Friedman could have rejected the judgment, based on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the laws governing patent enforcement.

The case already has been tied up in years of appeals, including an issue that landed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The dispute revolves around eBay's "Buy It Now" option, which sells merchandise at a fixed price instead of fluctuating bids. MercExchange contends the system tramples on its patented technology.

A federal jury sided with MercExchange in 2003, concluding that eBay should pay $35 million in damages. The award was later reduced to about $25 million. With interest accumulating since then, the value of the judgment has climbed back up to about $30 million, according to both MercExchange and eBay.

MercExchange had hoped to use the jury's findings to win a court order that would have prevented eBay from continuing to use the "Buy It Now" feature.

The legal wrangling over MercExchange's bid for an injunction against eBay culminated in a pivotal ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. The high court decided that judges aren't automatically required to block a technology from being used even after a jury finds a patent violation like eBay's.

In addition to the judgment, MercExchange wants millions in licensing fees for use of its patented technology since the 2003 verdict. EBay has vehemently declined to pay.

Since the legal tug-of-war began, MercExchange's payroll has shrank from more than 40 employees to three. Thomas Woolston, MercExchange's president, is trying to revive the company's growth by licensing patents to other e-commerce sites.

Meanwhile, eBay has already accounted for the MercExchange judgment on its books. And it ended September with $3.9 billion in cash.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videos of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books — and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue. Kennedy gave the government until Friday to respond.

Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."

In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."

For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.

"It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said.

He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."

The American Civil Liberties Union filed court documents Wednesday, claiming the destruction of the tapes violated a judge's order in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The group cited a 2004 order by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, who told the CIA to produce or identify all records pertaining to the treatment of detainees in custody.

The tapes were also destroyed at a time when attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui were seeking interrogation videos that might help show their client wasn't a part of the 9/11 attacks.