United States Attorney David R. Dugas announced Wednesday he will step down from his position effective April 24.

Dugas said he will join a national private law firm which has offices in Baton Rouge.

He called serving as U.S. attorney "the greatest honor and most rewarding experience" of his professional career.

Dugas was appointed by President George W. Bush and took office October 17, 2001, only five weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

It appears law firms are wearing class-action targets on their backs over tax and securities advice.

McMillan has become the latest big-name law firm hit with a class action. It was sued by an investor in March over the tax advice the firm issued involving the Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc.

Investor Melvin Schneider wants to represent between 250 and 300 investors in a suit against Royal Crown, its promoters and McMillan over the tax shelter.

Royal Crown's mandate was to purchase gold properties in Canada and develop them into profitable businesses. It had claims in British Columbia.

The lawsuit alleges that a tax opinion offered by Mc-Millan partner Michael Friedman determined that the "amounts paid by investors to acquire a legal and beneficial ownership of a mining claim should constitute a Canadian Development Expense for the purpose of s. 66.2 of the [Income] Tax Act."

According to the lawsuit, investors would buy four units in a cell of land for $100,000. The claim alleges that under the offering memorandum, investors would put up $20,000 and provide a promissory note for $80,000.

They would then pay $3,200 in interest on the note, which would be tax deductible, and receive a $3,000 royalty payment. The claim alleges that over three years, the scheme provided investors with returns of 39.23%, 92.78%, and 34.02%.

However, the Canada Revenue Agency later rejected the proposed tax deductions because Royal Crown had not obtained a tax shelter number, the development expense was "inflated, unreasonable and unsupportable" and the promissory note was a contingent liability.

It reassessed investors and charged them penalties and interest. The lawsuit accuses McMillan of negligence, alleging it "provided the tax opinions to the promoters which were a necessary prerequisite for the promotion and sale of the units as a tax deductible investments.

Top Wall Street law firm Sullivan & Cromwell is to take the lead in representing Goldman Sachs against the formal investigation brought by the Financial Services Authority.

The investment bank had already retained Sullivan & Cromwell to defend it against fraud allegations brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and today said the legal giant would at least for now be taking charge of the FSA case.

Goldman has a long-term relationship with Sullivan & Cromwell. Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman trader named as a defendant in the SEC's civil suit, is being represented by Allen & Overy.

The Supreme Court is stepping into a legal fight over Omega's effort to stop Costco from offering the Swiss maker's watches for up to a third less than they cost elsewhere.

The case has important implications for discount sellers like Costco and Target as well as eBay, Amazon and other companies that form an estimated $58 billion annual market for goods that are purchased abroad, then imported and resold without the permission of the manufacturer.

The justices said Monday they will hear Costco's appeal of a lower court ruling that sided with Omega in its attempt to invoke U.S. copyright law to halt the discount sales. Omega owns a U.S. copyright on the Omega Globe Design symbol that is engraved on its watches at the time they are made.

The high court has previously ruled that copyright protections do not apply to goods made in the United States, sold abroad and then imported back into the country for resale. At issue in this case are items that are manufactured overseas, sold by their maker abroad and then brought back here for resale.

This means of purchase, importation and resale is sometimes called the secondary-goods or gray-goods market, and it is a big part of Costco's business.

The Supreme Court appears likely to rule against public employees who claimed a local government violated their privacy by reading racy text messages they sent on their employers' account.

Several justices said Monday that the employer, the Ontario, Calif., police department, acted reasonably in monitoring the text messages in view of its written policy warning employees they have no guarantee of privacy in the use of office computer and electronics equipment.

Justice Stephen Breyer said he didn't see "anything, quite honestly, unreasonable about that."

While the case involves government workers, the decision could have broader privacy implications as courts continue to sort out privacy issues in the digital age. Many employers, including Ontario, tell workers there is no guarantee of privacy in anything sent over their company- or government-provided computers, cell phones or pagers.

The case arose when the Ontario department decided to audit text message usage to see whether its SWAT team officers were using them too often for personal reasons. Three police officers and another employee complained that the department improperly snooped on their electronic exchanges, including many that were said to be sexually explicit.

The Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote Tuesday struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to sell videos and other depictions of animal cruelty, saying the law infringed on free speech rights.

"We read (the law) to create a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, noting that nowhere in the disputed law was there a requirement that the depicted conduct actually be "cruel."

The text of the law, used to prosecute a Virginia man who had advertised videos of dogfights in an underground magazine, sweepingly covered "any depiction" in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed."

Yet as the justices struck down that prohibition, they specifically said they were not deciding the validity of a law that would target only so-called "crush videos," which typically show women's high heels digging into kittens and other small animals and which had inspired Congress to write the 1999 law in the first place.

Robert Stevens, who had run a business known as "Dogs of Velvet and Steel," appealed his conviction under the law, saying it violated his First Amendment speech rights. He also contended he was trying to provide educational and historical materials about the pit bull breed, not promoting illegal dogfighting.

The Supreme Court seemed to split sharply Monday on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.

In arguments tinged with questions of religious, racial and sexual discrimination, the court heard from the Christian Legal Society, which wants recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law as an official campus organization with school financing and benefits.

Hastings, located in San Francisco, turned them down, saying no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

The Christian group requires that voting members sign a statement of faith. The group also regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with the statement of faith.