Mr. Pitt has devoted his entire professional career, a period of more than 40 years, to the field of public finance. During his career, Mr. Pitt has worked extensively in virtually every area of public finance as either a bond lawyer or an investment banker in over 45 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, involving several thousand financings.

He was initially associated with the Chicago law firm of Chapman and Cutler for five years, after which he was one of the founding partners of the Chicago law firm of Borge and Pitt. The firm operated as a public finance boutique for nearly 20 years with offices in Chicago and New York before merging with the national law firm of Katten Muchin & Zavis, now known as Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.

After ten years with KMZ, rounding out 34 years as a practicing public finance lawyer, principally as bond counsel or underwriters' counsel, Mr. Pitt broadened the scope of his experience and began nearly ten years of public finance investment banking by joining First Chicago Capital Markets, Inc., which in 1998 merged with Banc One Capital Markets, Inc., where Mr. Pitt was a Managing Director and headed up municipal and investment grade corporate securities origination. In August 2000, he joined the Municipal Securities Group of PaineWebber Incorporated, now known as UBS Securities LLC, and was a Managing Director in the MSG's Healthcare Finance Group until June 2004, when he joined Morgan Keegan's Fixed Income Banking Group in its newly established Chicago Public Finance Investment Banking Office as a Managing Director. He remained there for three years and joined Greenberg Traurig in August 2007.

"It isn't everyday that you can add an industry legend. George has been a trendsetter and model of success in the public finance world for decades. His presence has already created excitement within our Chicago public finance practice and among our clients." said Keith J. Shapiro, Co-Managing Shareholder of the Chicago office.

Mr. Pitt earned his B.A. from Northwestern University and his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law.

About Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Greenberg Traurig, LLP is an international, full-service law firm with more than 1,700 attorneys and governmental affairs professionals in the U.S., Europe and Asia. The firm is ranked seventh on The American Lawyer's Am Law 100 listing of the largest law firms in the U.S., based on number of lawyers.

Greenberg Traurig serves clients from offices in: Albany, NY; Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Atlanta, GA; Boca Raton, FL; Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Morristown, NJ; New York, NY; Orange County, CA; Orlando, FL; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Sacramento, CA; Silicon Valley, CA; Tallahassee, FL; Tampa Bay, FL; Tokyo, Japan; Tysons Corner, VA; Washington, D.C.; West Palm Beach, FL; Wilmington, DE; and Zurich, Switzerland. Additionally, the firm has strategic alliances with the following independent law firms: Olswang, London and Brussels; Studio Santa Maria, Milan and Rome; and Hayabusa Asuka Law Offices in Tokyo.

For additional information, please visit the firm's Web site at www.gtlaw.com.

The case involved Khaled el-Masri, who says he was detained while on vacation in Macedonia in late 2003, transported by the United States to Afghanistan and held there for five months in a secret prison before being taken to Albania and set free, evidently having been mistaken for a terrorism suspect with a similar name.

Mr. Masri says he was tortured while in the prison. After prosecutors in Germany investigated the case, a court there issued arrest warrants in January for 13 agents of the Central Intelligence Agency. The German Parliament is continuing to investigate the episode, which has become a very public example of the United States government’s program of "extraordinary rendition."

Mr. Masri, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, brought a lawsuit in federal court against George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence from 1997 to 2004; three private airline companies; and 20 people identified only as John Doe. He sought damages for treatment that he said violated both the Constitution and international law.

Shortly after he filed the lawsuit in December 2005, the government intervened to seek its dismissal under the state secrets privilege, asserting that to have to provide evidence in the case would compromise national security. That argument succeeded in the Federal District Court in Alexandria, Va., which dismissed the case without permitting Mr. Masri’s lawyers to take discovery. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld the dismissal in March.

In their Supreme Court appeal, El-Masri v. United States, No. 06-1613, Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that these rulings allowed the state secrets doctrine to become "unmoored" from its origins as a rule to be invoked to shield specific evidence in a lawsuit against the government, rather than to dismiss an entire case before any evidence was produced.

The Supreme Court created the doctrine in a 1953 decision, United States v. Reynolds, which began as a lawsuit by survivors of three civilians who had died in the crash of a military aircraft. In pretrial discovery, the plaintiffs sought the official accident report.

But the government, asserting that the report included information about the plane’s secret mission and the equipment that it was testing, refused to reveal it. The Supreme Court upheld the government, ruling that evidence should not be disclosed when "there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged."

Mr. Masri’s lawyers argued that this decision, which the court has occasionally invoked but has not revisited, did not justify dismissing a case before any evidence was requested. Ben Wizner, Mr. Masri’s lawyer at the civil liberties union, said in an interview that the courts had permitted the doctrine to evolve from an evidentiary privilege to a broad grant of immunity, a way for the executive branch to shield itself from judicial scrutiny.

In this case, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement offered to let the justices see, "under appropriate security measures," the classified declaration that the government filed in the lower courts to support its claim of privilege. The court evidently did not think that step was necessary.

The court will soon have other opportunities to revisit the state secrets issue. Last week the A.C.L.U. filed an appeal that raises the issue as part of a challenge to the National Security Agency’s program of wiretapping without court warrants.

District Attorney Danny Porter of Gwinnett County said the $150,000 figure represented Taylor's earnings as a prostitute in 2006, when she received roughly $3,000 or more each week.

"In the end it was a hooker case," Porter said. "She was treated no differently than someone that was charged with the possession of cocaine and prostitution and didn't have a prior record. ... And the judge gave her a chance to straighten out her life. Whether she does, we'll see."

The case made national headlines because Taylor and another woman, Nicole Probert, were accused of running a brothel in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in metro Atlanta. Sugarloaf Country Club is home to some high-profile entertainers and athletes. Taylor's own celebrity status as a former Penthouse Pet of the Month and a stripper who went by the name of Melissa Wolf added to the media frenzy.

Probert has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial, as are several men authorities say were their customers.

Porter said Taylor's plea will likely bring a quick resolution of the other cases.

When asked whether Probert would accept a similar plea deal, her attorney Steve Sadow said, "The simple answer is no. My expectation is that the case can be resolved without a trial and without a guilty plea."

Max Richardson, Taylor's attorney, said Taylor plans to "get on with her new life" and hopes "she can sell real estate if she doesn't get blackballed by everybody.

News of Taylor's arrest sent shockwaves through the gated community and made national news.

Days after police arrested Taylor on Jan. 3, 2007, neighbors told reporters about loud parties and lewd behavior at Taylor's house. Yet they also said other neighbors sometimes threw loud parties.

"We've got athletes and rock singers, and on occasion they throw big parties; they tend to be loud," one neighbor, Richard Hassberger, told reporters then.

Soon, however, prosecutors painted a lurid portrait that detailed something very much out of the ordinary happening behind closed doors in Taylor's house.

Taylor was Penthouse Pet of the Month in 1985 and starred in several X-rated films. Probert performed as an adult entertainer under the name "Naughty Nikki." Together, authorities said, they charged clients $5,000 to $10,000 for sex in the country club home. Prosecutors also charged them with providing cocaine to some clients.

A Gwinnett County grand jury later indicted Taylor and Probert on drug, prostitution and racketeering charges. The charges said the women offered to perform sex acts as "a duo" on 12 occasions beginning in January 2006 but that the last four occasions were not completed because of the womens' arrest.

The case against Taylor took an unexpected turn about three weeks ago, on Sept. 21, when police in Duluth pulled over a car in which she was riding. Authorities said the car was weaving. They also said they found cocaine and prescription drugs; police charged her with three felony and one misdemeanor drug charges. Richardson, her attorney, said that the prescription drugs were prescribed for depression and related problems.

Up to that point, Taylor had been out of jail on bond, awaiting the resolution of the prostitution charges against her, but her arrest on Sept. 21 sent her to the Gwinnett County Jail with no bond allowed.

The prospect of remaining in jail until her trial on the prostitution and drug charges played a key role in Taylor's decision to plead guilty on Wednesday afternoon, her lawyer said. Now, he said, she's eager for a fresh start.

"We're just hoping somebody gives her a chance," he said.

Brownstein already handles water cases in addition to real estate, lobbying, litigation, corporate law and gaming cases. Jim Lochhead, a Brownstein lawyer who specializes in water, said Thursday that the merger will allow the combined firm to handle cases across the West at all stages, from arguing for water rights in court to securing permits from regulators.

Lochhead said water will become the most important natural resource in the West over the next 20 to 30 years because of climate change and population growth. He thinks utilities and private industry will increasingly be looking for new ways to provide it and willing to go farther to get it, such as recycling water or converting sea water to drinking water.

"Those kinds of projects and that kind of thinking is really going to require a broadbased approach," Lochhead said.

He said the firm would not be able to represent any cases in which California and Colorado water interests are in direct opposition. But increasingly he thinks complicated water disputes will be worked out by negotiating, as happened recently among upper and lower basin states who depend on water from the Colorado River.

Brownstein's current clients include the Denver suburb of Aurora, the Idaho Power Co. and real estate developers in New Mexico and Colorado.

Hatch & Parent represents the San Diego Water Authority, the cities of Fresno and Oxnard and the South Tahoe Public Utility District.