"Of course, this is the worst possible development," a law professor at New York University, Stephen Gillers, said. "It bodes ill for Partners A & B," the professor said, using the pseudonyms prosecutors have adopted to refer to Messrs. Weiss and Lerach in court proceedings. "Each of them is clearly in the prosecutors' sights," Mr. Gillers said. With Bershad's testimony, prosecutors "may now have the ability to pull the trigger" and obtain an indictment of the two men, Mr. Gillers said.

"It seems pretty damning to me," another professor who has been following the case, Larry Ribstein of the University of Illinois, said. "They are facing a trial or pretty hard time, if all this pans out."

Messrs. Weiss and Lerach have not been charged with any crime. However, in recent weeks, the pair has been in plea discussions with federal prosecutors, a lawyer involved in the case said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Weiss's attorney, Benjamin Brafman, declined to comment on the development. Mr. Lerach's lawyer, John Keker, did not respond to a message seeking comment for this article.

Bershad could receive up to five years in prison on the conspiracy count. Prosecutors and Bershad's lawyers agreed that sentencing guidelines call for 18 months to two years in his case, though Judge Walter is not obligated to follow that recommendation. Bershad also agreed to forfeit $7.75 million of his receipts from the various lawsuits and to pay a $250,000 fine.

At yesterday's hearing, Bershad and one of his lawyers, Cristina Arguedas, stood at a lectern as a prosecutor, Richard Robinson, outlined the facts the government would seek to prove if Bershad went to trial. For 15 minutes, the prosecutor described the scheme by which Milberg Weiss used secretly paid plaintiffs to win the race to be first to file securities lawsuits.

"Generally, these individuals were promised that they would be paid approximately 10% of the net attorneys' fees that Milberg Weiss obtained," Mr. Robinson said. This gave Milberg Weiss an advantage because plaintiffs' firms that filed first were likely to be named as lead counsel and to enjoy a larger share of attorneys fees when cases were settled, he said. In 1995, Congress changed the laws related to class actions, and first-to-file status became less critical.

In one of the case's most eye-catching allegations, Mr. Robinson said Bershad kept in his office a stash of cash contributed by Milberg Weiss partners. The prosecutor said this became a "secret payment fund" used to make off-the-books distributions to plaintiffs, who were expected to take less than the customary 10% if they were paid in cash.

Mr. Robinson said Partner A, Mr. Weiss, made at least one payment from the fund, and Partner B, Mr. Lerach, sought reimbursement for a cash payment to a plaintiff. The prosecutor said Partner A also used a "phony option," which court papers indicate related to an artwork, to pay $175,000 owed to one plaintiff involved in the scheme.

“We believe the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) reached erroneous conclusions that could have been corrected by seeking clarification from Orrick before LCB published its audit report,” said the letter from James Houpt.

But the letter went on to say that the law firm considers Nevada to be a valuable client, and the firm's “intent is not to risk that relationship.”

State Treasurer Kate Marshall said the check already has been deposited in a state bank account.

“They respectfully disagreed with the audit, but they also felt it was the right decision for them to make the overpayment identified in the audit,” Marshall told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The state of Nevada is a little over $95,000 better off for it.”

As a result of the audit of the college savings program while under the review of then-Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Marshall sent a letter to the firm seeking a response.

Orrick had served as bond counsel to the state at the time the services were rendered for the program. The contract allowed the firm to provide legal services to other state agencies as well. The firm currently does not have any contract to serve as bond counsel with the state.

The treasurer's office is awaiting a response from another firm that did business with the state for the college savings program on a separate issue raised in the audit.

A Georgia consulting firm, GIF Services, was overpaid $300,000, according to the audit released in May.

The audit was sought by legislators after Marshall said in March that it appeared funds for the program were diverted for unauthorized legal expenditures and marketing costs.

The audit also raised the issue of whether Krolicki broke state law by not depositing $6 million in state-earned fees into the state treasury. The audit has been turned over to the attorney general's office for an investigation.

Krolocki, now lieutenant governor, has said he broke no laws in his management of the program during his eight years as treasurer.

The program was established by the 2001 Legislature to allow parents to invest money in mutual funds to build up college funds for their children.

None of the money that parents invested is missing or ended up in an improper account, according to the audit.

"He doesn't respect the court. He ain't here," attorney Gregory Lattimer told the U.S. District Court jury, motioning toward an empty chair next to Iverson's lawyer at the defense table. "He doesn't respect anything that isn't Allen Iverson."

Marlin Godfrey and David Anthony Kittrell say the fight was started by Iverson's bodyguard and entourage when the pair refused to vacate a VIP section for Iverson at the Eyebar nightclub in Washington. Iverson, 32, testified that he didn't see the fight.

Godfrey and Kittrell claim the bodyguard, Jason Kane, and Terrance Williams assaulted them. They allege that Williams, a friend of Kane, was acting on Iverson's behalf.

Godfrey was badly beaten during the melee, suffering head and other injuries. Lattimer said he suffered depression and other long-term health problems from the incident.

The lawsuit says Iverson is responsible for the brawl because he failed to properly supervise Kane and Williams _ but it does not claim he took part in the fight. The suit also accuses Kane of assault and battery for allegedly beating Godfrey with items that include a bottle.

Iverson said Monday the suit was a get-rich-quick scheme by the two men, who targeted him because of his wealth and fame. Kane testified he wasn't involved in the fight and hustled Iverson out of the club when a brawl appeared imminent.

Iverson's lawyer, Alan Milstein, told jurors Thursday that Kittrell and Godfrey lied about details of the fight and who instigated it.

Iverson had no role in the melee, and wasn't responsible for Williams, who was not working for him, Milstein said. He echoed Iverson's claim that the case was an attempt to fleece the wealthy NBA star.

"The only reason Mr. Iverson is sued is because he's got the money. This whole case is about who's got it and how do we get it," Milstein said.

Iverson faces another lawsuit for another nightclub fight involving his security in Hampton, Va. That happened less than two weeks before the Washington fight.

July marks the 30th anniversary for a Carbondale law firm that has technically been in existence for the last 99 years.

Feirich/Mager/Green/Ryan and Associates, 2001 W. Main St. near the Westtown Mall in Murdale, established its current banner in 1977, but the roots of the firm stretch back to 1908, when local attorneys W.W. Barr and C.E. Feirich started a practice together.

Firm partner Richard Green, one of the founders of the business' current iteration, said lasting 30 years in one form means you're doing well; lasting nearly a century in some fashion is extraordinary. Then again, the firm has always been known for beating the odds, he added.

"You think about it, in 1977 we were a six-person law firm, a size that was unheard of at that time. People said it wouldn't survive," Green said.

It did and has grown into a firm housing 15 lawyers, six paralegals and numerous other staff members.

There was a time when Southern Illinois was considered underserved with its number of attorneys, partner John Ryan said.

"There's an old saying that goes if there is one lawyer in town he'll starve to death, but if there are two, they'll do just fine," Ryan said.

Today the Jackson County Bar Association alone has more than 240 registered attorneys, Ryan said. Being an attorney is a lucrative career option, he said, because lawyers are called on quite often.

"The work is a byproduct of our society," Ryan said.

Cellular signals often have difficulty penetrating massive steel high-rise buildings. But in Washington's downtown, matters are worse because of height restrictions that force builders to add multiple basement floors.

One law firm knew that a new headquarters facility near the White House might pose problems for 500 lawyers and staffers using wireless handhelds, so it commissioned a site survey before the headquarters was finished. The survey found that cellular signals would probably be poor, especially in a new law library three stories underground.

"Indoor cellular coverage is a real problem in D.C., and we're one of the few tenants to get to a solution," said Rodney Carson, director of administration for the Washington headquarters of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP (K&L Gates). "The cellular phone companies have not been real forthcoming in solving these problems."

Indeed, two hotels operated by Marriott International at the Grand Lakes resort in Orlando had to install special indoor antennas to boost cellular signals for guests, several years after the hotels opened.

Carson's law firm started researching the indoor cellular problem in early 2006 and by April had finished installing a system to boost cellular signals for both T-Mobile USA Inc., provider of Research In Motion Ltd.'s BlackBerry service, and Verizon Wireless, the carrier that the majority of cellular voice users at the law firm rely upon, Carson said.

Carson asked Glasgow Group Inc., a Washington-based telecommunications consultancy, to recommend vendors of equipment to boost the cellular signals, and the law firm eventually chose LGC Wireless Inc. San Jose-based LGC installed a system of cables, three communications hubs and 24 remote antennas as the new 11-story high-rise building was completed.

The LGC InterReach Unison system cost K&L Gates about $80,000. The law firm also paid T-Mobile about $20,000 to install a mini base station, and it paid Verizon about $50,000 for a rooftop antenna.

At the Marriott hotels in Orlando, Mobile Access Networks Inc. in Vienna, Va., installed special distributed antennas to handle cellular and Wi-Fi, and the total of all the related costs topped $2 million. InnerWireless Inc. in Richardson, Texas, also competes in the market for in-building wireless systems, according to a spokesman for LGC.

Carson said today that the cellular signals now work well, even three stories underground in the law library, where about 60 people work. "We had all sorts of complaints about the signal at our older building, and with three floors underground, we knew we faced life safety issues, and needed some sort of solution," Carson said.

"Now we get rave reviews from users as well as clients and attorneys from other firms who can get a signal but say they can't get their phones to work at their own offices," he said.

K&L Gates also has Wi-Fi service throughout its new building, but a decision to add voice over the Wi-Fi has been delayed as IT staff consider security issues, Carson said.

Carson said he realizes that the costs for the project were much less because the work was done during construction and not afterward, as was the case at the Marriott hotels in Orlando.

Having reliable indoor cellular access is going to prove to be a sound decision, Carson added. "That's especially true because everybody has gotten more reliant on handhelds," he said.

Still, many veterans of those days must feel a sense of betrayal. Was what we stood up for as right - and this applies to those urging obedience to the law and those protesting in the streets - all wrong?

Members of the county school board must feel that the high court has turned its back to its efforts to make classrooms' racial makeup reflect the county's.

Lost among the arguments and counterarguments was the simple fact that the case didn't have to be. Louisville had won national attention in 1956 for voluntarily desegregating its public schools in compliance with Brown vs. Board of Education. It was a token action since housing patterns dictated that neighborhood schools would remain single-race.

By the 1970s, the city's demographics had changed. Housing patterns, in part spurred by urban renewal, had shifted. Louisville's West End, once dominated by ethnic, blue-collar families, became the home for blacks fleeing the inner city and, in many cases, urban renewal's relentless bulldozers. White families moved to the suburban developments springing up across Jefferson County.

A ring of small cities surrounding Louisville blocked the city from annexing the new communities. And the county's sleepy, essentially rural school system found itself scrambling to build schools fast enough to accommodate the influx.

By the early 1970s, it was apparent the Louisville school system was close to the tipping point where the city's remaining white families would flee. The county schools, by contrast, were almost all white. There were a few historically black neighborhoods scattered across the county, most of them in one school district. Both districts became the target of desegregation suits. The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights argued that the districts should be merged.

The city school board then complicated the cases. It bowed to the reality of a shrinking tax base and the threat of white flight and went out of business. The Legislature enacted merger legislation, and the systems, which had little respect for each other, began to try to reconcile their cultures and educational philosophies. U.S. District Judge James Gordon, who was hearing the desegregation suits, gave them breathing room by finding both systems legally desegregated.

But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't convinced. Newburg School, serving a historically black community, went through the eighth grade. All other county elementary schools stopped at the sixth grade. It was a vestige of de jure segregation that Judge Gordon acknowledged having had difficulty "writing around" in finding the schools in compliance with Brown.

The case bounced back to Judge Gordon with an order to put a desegregation plan into effect. To help in drafting it, Judge Gordon turned to two young administrators in the city system. They developed a system of school clusters, pairing inner city predominantly black schools with suburban schools. Students were to be transported among the schools according to the first letter of their last name. To achieve racial balance, white students would be bused two years; black students, 10.

Implementation of the plan marred Louisville's image across the country. The ugly pictures from protest marches and rallies showed up on the 6 p.m. news nationwide. The Courier Journal and Louisville Times building at Sixth and Broadway became a favorite target because of our calls for obedience to the law. Reporters and photographers covering the marches and rallies took an undeserved share of the abuse.

To have it end up with the almost flip statement by Chief Justice John Roberts that the "way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is dismissive of centuries of discrimination. It puts down the good-faith efforts by Louisville and thousands of other communities to overcome that past.

Americans of all races deserve better of their highest court.