In response to the crisis, more than 2,700 law students traveled to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, on trips a bit reminiscent of the famous civil rights freedom rides. The students do just about everything but appear in court, including interviewing defendants and collecting evidence. Public defenders from different parts of the country took sabbaticals from their day jobs to come down as well. But however welcome, this is as effective as washing the bathroom floor with a toothbrush, say New Orleans public defenders. Eventually, you'll clean up the mess, but a mop could take care of the problem a whole lot faster. The law firms are far stronger and richer than anyone else in the legal world. Why aren't they helping the Bayou's criminal-defense bar recover?

To be fair, big law has done a lot for the region. Firms donated thousands of hours to the legal rebuilding effort, sending lawyers down to help with FEMA appeals, small-business recovery, and Road Home grants. The Mississippi Center for Justice, a Jackson-based nonprofit founded in 2003, convinced 19 law firms to donate 8,100 hours last year, adding up to a value of $3 million.*

Most of this work, however, has been on civil matters. Generally, it makes sense for law firms to concentrate on helping with civil suits, because criminal defendants have a constitutional right to representation. Remember Gideon? The 1963 Supreme Court case ordered states to pay for attorneys for poor people accused of crimes, making pro bono work on their behalf relatively superfluous. The flip side of state-funded defense, however, is that when it fails, firms aren't prepared to help pick up the pieces. For poor litigants in New Orleans, that often means waiting months in jail before even meeting a lawyer.

It's the systems firms use to efficiently donate legal hours that hold them back from effectively helping criminal litigants. The idea of an organized firm pro bono program started gathering steam about 15 years ago. In 1993, the American Bar Association revised its Rule of Professional Conduct to describe donating 50 hours of free legal work a year as a "professional responsibility." The Pro Bono Institute at Georgetown University Law Center challenges firms to donate either 100 hours per attorney or an amount of time equal to 5 percent of the firm's total billable hours. More than 150 large firms have signed off on the standard.

That doesn't mean they meet it: According to the American Lawyer's 2006 pro bono survey, only about 37 percent of law firm attorneys at the 200 biggest firms did at least 20 hours of work last year. Still, even if the firms miss their pro bono goals, most consider setting them good for business. A strong pro bono program is a recruiting hook for top law students and junior lawyers, who give more weight to pro bono in deciding where to work than they used to. Industry publications, like the American Lawyer's A-List, include pro bono in their ranking criteria for firms.

Today, at most big firms, pro bono works like a well-oiled machine. Many have pro bono coordinators or partners working full time to vet projects and match them with the appropriate lawyers. The firms generally expect the public interest providers to present packaged, clear projects with a set scope and time frame. Firms will go far for the most desirable cases. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported (subscription required), some donate money, office space, or clerical help to nonprofits in return for the first crack at interesting legal matters. Lawyers Without Borders Inc. requires an upfront donation of $7,500 a year before it gives firms access to the best cases.

But if the cases don't fit the traditional format, firms won't touch them. And firms generally feel most comfortable doing the kind of work they know best. Hand them a real-estate dispute, small-business negotiation, or intellectual property problem, and they'll come at it with a flurry of paper and army of suits. But dealing with drug charges, petty thefts, and assaults? Not so much. Also, it takes lawyers to get lawyers. Even in the midst of legal chaos, firms want a fully developed plan of action. If a firm is going to take on a criminal case, in a district with different laws, it wants assurance that its lawyers will be heavily supervised. No firm likes a malpractice suit. And no lawyer wants to give any client—whether paying or not—bad legal advice.

But just as the fire department doesn't create a spreadsheet while the house goes down in flames, in New Orleans, there's no legal master plan and almost no one to oversee the volunteer defense lawyers. Orleans Parish lost almost all of its public defenders after Katrina, plummeting from about 40 to fewer than 10. In 2006, a Department of Justice report obtained by the Los Angeles Times recommended 70 full-time public defenders. With the city in a perpetual state of legal panic, no one has time to package up projects for firms. Also, since it takes weeks to learn how to navigate the dysfunctional system, volunteers ideally need to stay for several months. Firms are willing to send down lawyers for a week or two, but they won't give up a client-serving body for months on end.

In other cities with more developed pro bono infrastructures, nonprofit middlemen negotiate this kind of culture clash. For example, nonprofit groups like New York Lawyers for the Public Interest coordinated much of the legal response after 9/11. But in the Gulf Coast, there's no one to play mediator and no great pro bono force to spearhead a shift from civil to criminal work.

So, what can a Creole-loving firm do? Taking the small cases may be tough for firms, but challenging the entire system wouldn't be. Firms are great at impact litigation. Be it a suit against a city, state, or large public institution, firms have pushed the law forward in amazing ways through large-scale litigation. They can do the same in New Orleans. The current system raises some serious constitutional questions. For starters, poor litigants get no representation between the time bail is set and weeks later when the district attorney's office decides whether it will take the case to trial. Public defenders are funded largely by court fees—money paid by the indigent defendants themselves when they're convicted. Two New Orleans criminal court judges found the funding system unconstitutional, but the case has yet to be presented before the Supreme Court.

Another way firms could help: They can fund a New Orleans pro bono coordinator, in the way that they regularly sponsor public interest fellowships. The coordinator could work full time packaging the projects and rallying the law firm troops. The firms could get projects suited to them, and the city's defense lawyers could spend their time doing their jobs. The cavalry, it seems, might just need a good scout.

Delgado, Acosta, Braden and Jones, one of El Paso's larger law firms, is being dissolved, and three of its partners have joined forces with an Austin law firm.

Alejandro Acosta Jr. and Hector Delgado, who opened their law firm in 1994, and John Jones, who became a partner in 1995, have become partners of Bickerstaff, Heath, Pollan & Caroom, which has changed its name to Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado & Acosta. It specializes in state and local government law.

Acosta has become CEO of the Austin-based firm, which now has offices in El Paso, where Acosta and Delgado will be based. Their new firm will retain the Dallas and Houston offices operated by Delgado and Acosta's old firm. Jones will oversee the Houston office.

Two other lawyers in the El Paso firm have moved to the Austin firm while 11 of the El Paso firm's other lawyers have found jobs or opened their own practices, Acosta said.

"We (Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado & Acosta) are now the largest minority-owned firm in the Southwest with over 30 lawyers statewide," Acosta said.
"We have clients throughout the state and we wanted a statewide firm. ... This makes us a bigger and better firm."

C. Robert Heath, who founded his firm in 1980 along with his now-retired partner Steve Bickerstaff, said, "We had worked with (the) Delgado, Acosta (firm) for several years largely in some matters in El Paso, and we had a good working relationship and great respect for them, and when we determined the possibility of joining together -- that offered some great opportunities for both of us."

The firm now has 18 partners, Heath said.

Paul Braden, the other partner in the El Paso law firm, has become a partner in Fulbright & Jaworski, an international law firm. Braden will work out of El Paso.

Fulbright & Jaworski "is a great firm with a global presence and one of the pre-eminent bond practices in the country (which is the area of the law in which I practice)," Braden said in a written statement.

Two of the Delgado, Acosta firm's lawyers also moved to the Bickerstaff, Heath firm: Ricardo Ortiz is in the Dallas office, and Catherine Than is in the Houston office.

Vic Kolenc may be reached at vkolenc@elpasotimes.com; 546-6421.

For more information: www.bickerstaff.com; www.delgadoacosta.com.

John Farnham's manager Glenn Wheatley has pleaded guilty to three tax-related charges.

The 59-year-old admitted not declaring his $256,000 income from Farnham's Talk of the Town Tour.

The court heard Wheatley paid it into a Swiss-based tax minimisation scheme that is now under investigation as part of the Australian Crime Commission's Operation Wickenby.

Wheatley has also pleaded guilty to avoiding his tax obligations as promoter of a 2003 Kostya Tszyu boxing match.

Wheatley told the court he was deeply ashamed of his actions.

He added he was angry he has become the public face of Operation Wickenby because of a leak, despite promises from authorities that his case would be kept confidential until today.

A man accused of a dismemberment killing has lost a unique legal challenge of Manitoba’s jury system in which he claimed the right to be tried by a jury composed mostly of natives like himself.

Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Marc Monnin handed down a decision Wednesday, ruling Sydney Teerhuis’ rights are not being violated by the current system.

Teerhuis, 35, argued last fall the jury selection process doesn’t allow for a true representation of the public to hear a criminal case and is a violation of his charter rights.

Teerhuis is accused of dismembering, beheading and castrating Robin Greene, 38, inside a Winnipeg hotel in the summer of 2003. Police were led to the body after a man walked into the Public Safety Building and allegedly confessed.

Investigators initially believed they were responding to a prank call and were stunned to find the victim inside the bathtub of a hotel suite on July 2, 2003 — cut into eight pieces.

Police have been unable to locate some internal organs  — including the heart and intestines — and their disposition remains a disturbing mystery.

Police also recovered inside the suite a necklace that had been stolen one day earlier from the set of the Hollywood movie, Shall We Dance?, starring Jennifer Lopez, Susan Sarandon and Richard Gere.

The movie was being filmed in Winnipeg. The $4,000 necklace belonged to Sarandon but played no role in the killing in terms of motive, according to police.

The celebrity link to the gruesome case sparked interest in the United States from gossip magazines, tabloid newspapers and entertainment talk shows.

Greene and his alleged killer weren’t known to each other, but apparently met just prior to the homicide and agreed to return to the hotel for consensual sex.

One of Teerhuis’ main arguments about the jury process was that aboriginals are unfairly barred from jury duty because of a rule that states jurors can’t have criminal records.

Teerhuis cited statistics that show 61 per cent of people in prison are native.

Defence lawyer Greg Brodsky claimed justice officials have created a system where the only people selected for jury duty are “the elderly and the unemployed.”

Jury co-ordinator Gail Hildebrand told court that about 1,600 jury notices were sent out in anticipation of the Teerhuis trial, which was set to begin last September.

She said the list of names was randomly generated through provincial health records and she didn’t know how many people on it were native.

Crown attorney Deborah Carlson said there is no evidence anything improper occurred when dismissing prospective jurors.

LG Electronics has filed suit against Taiwanese manufacturer Quanta Computers alleging infringement of its DVD patents.

LG is seeking an injunction to prohibit Quanta's use of this technology as well as monetary compensation. The suit was filed in the US District Court in the Western District of Wisconsin on 3 July.

The claims include infringement of four DVD patents which LG says Quanta has been using without permission to produce notebook computers supplied to US computer companies.

"LG's proprietorship of DVD technologies is widely recognised throughout the industry, and the unlicensed use of our intellectual property is not acceptable under any circumstances," said Jeong Hwan Lee, executive vice president and head of LG Electronics' Intellectual Property Centre.

Quanta said in an official statement: "The company has assigned its legal representatives to work on this matter. R&D is crucial to Quanta's success, and the company values and respects intellectual property rights.

"Quanta is committed to defending its reputation and acting in the best interest of its shareholders."

LG filed a lawsuit against Quanta for alleged patent infringement of its personal computer technology in a Californian District Court in 2000.

In July 2006, the US Court of Appeals overturned and handed back the decision of the trial court, which had originally decided that the Taiwanese company did not infringe on LG's patents.

The companies are currently awaiting the court's final decision, which is expected to be handed down during the first half of 2008. LG said that it expects the final ruling to be in its favour.

Notice is hereby given that Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Telik, Inc. ("Telik" or the "Company") between March 27, 2003 and June 4, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers in the Company's November 5, 2003 and January 28, 2005 stock offerings.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (202) 337-8000 or Toll Free at (877) 337-1050, by email at info@finkelsteinthompson.com, or visit our website at http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com.

The Complaint charges Telik and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and prospects caused Telik's stock price to become artificially inflated, causing damage to investors. Telik is a biopharmaceutical company that engages in the discovery and development of small molecule therapeutics for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases. The Company's lead product candidate is TELCYTA, a small molecule cancer drug product candidate designed to be activated in cancer cells. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants misled investors about the effectiveness and safety of TELCYTA and the conduct of certain clinical trials for TELCYTA.

Specifically the Complaint alleges that when the Company issued preliminary results from its Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA, defendants materially misled the investing public by concealing that patients in those trials were dying much sooner than patients receiving the standard chemotherapy treatment.

On June 3, 2007 the Company announced additional details concerning the negative results of the Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA. This news caused the Company's stock to open on Monday, June 4, 2007 more than 15% lower than the previous trading day's closing price. By the end of trading that day, the stock had dropped even further. The Company further announced on June 4 that the FDA had initiated a clinical hold on the New Drug Application for TELCYTA, causing Telik stock to fall more than 25% on June 5, 2007.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by Finkelstein Thompson LLP. Finkelstein Thompson LLP has spent almost three decades delivering outstanding representation to institutional and individual clients in connection with securities and other finance-related litigation, and has been appointed as lead or co-lead counsel in dozens of shareholder class actions. Indeed, in the past decade, the firm has served in leadership roles in cases that have recovered over $1 billion for investors and consumers.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August 6, 2007, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a class member appointed by the Court to direct the litigation on behalf of the class. Although a class member need not be appointed as a lead plaintiff to receive a proportionate share of any proceeds of the litigation, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the prosecution of the class claims, including decisions concerning settlement. The securities laws create a rebuttable presumption that the plaintiff with the largest financial interest in the litigation is the most adequate to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you are a Telik shareholder and wish to discuss the case or have information relevant to the investigation, please contact our Washington, DC office toll-free at (877) 337-1050, or by email at contact@ftllaw.com.

A San Diego Superior Court judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit accusing Scripps Health hospitals of overcharging uninsured patients.

The suit alleges that uninsured Scripps patients pay as much as four times more than patients covered by Medicare or private insurance for the same procedures.

Judge Steven Denton made the class-action designation.

The suit seeks refunds that may exceed $100 million for 100,000 uninsured patients who allege they were overcharged by Scripps' five San Diego hospitals since 2002.

The suit also seeks penalties.

Scripps spokesman Don Stanziano said the company strongly objects to the accusations.

"Scripps is proud of our service to the community," Stanziano said.