Motorola Inc. (MOT) faces a purported class action lawsuit alleging it made material misrepresentations to the market, artificially inflating its stock price, attorneys from Brodsky & Smith LLC of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., said Tuesday.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Motorola, a Schaumburg, Ill., telecommunications company, between July 19, 2006, and Jan. 4.

A spokeswoman for Motorola said the company is reviewing the complaint and will respond at the appropriate time. She also said Motorola plans to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Vick has reportedly pocketed more than $US60 million from his dazzling six-season career in the National Football League, which began when he was the league's No. 1 pick in 2001.

He is expected to be sentenced next week and faces up to five years' jail and $US250,000 in fines. He is tipped to spend about a year behind bars.

Vick's lawyer, Billy Martin, said the player had accepted a plea deal after consulting his family. Mr Martin said Vick would accept full responsibility for the mistakes he has made.

"Michael wishes to apologise again to everyone who has been hurt by this matter," he said. Vick's decision to accept a plea deal from federal prosecutors came as a Grand Jury was hearing evidence against him.

The hearing could have decided to lay harsher charges against the player, including racketeering and gambling. Vick's career, endorsements and reputation are now in tatters. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has already banned Vick from Falcons training. He faces a lifetime ban from football under the league's personal conduct policy.

The dynamic player, who was the No. 1 NFL pick in 2001, has already suffered a backlash from sponsors, with Nike suspending the release of a new Michael Vick shoe and Reebok withdrawing his jerseys from sale.

Three co-defendants of Vick had already agreed to plea deals that required them to provide statements against Vick, who initially denied having any involvement.

Vick is accused of bankrolling the "Bad Newz Kennels" operation on Vick's Virginia property. The investigation into his alleged dog fighting activities began in April when dozens of pitbull dogs and dog-fighting equipment was found on the property.

The court documents say the search found about 54 American pitbull terriers, some of which had scars and injuries appearing to be related to dog fighting.

During a court hearing for Engman's case last week, Schlueter showed a video of a police tactics consultant shocking Engman for a few seconds, in order to demonstrate that Engman's injuries were more severe than those caused in the video. Schlueter and his brother were also shocked in the video, Schlueter said.

But, after the tape was shown, San Bernardino County Deputy District Attorney Dan Ross said that Schlueter and his consultant Roger Clark may have violated the state's human experimentation law, which requires patients to sign waivers for medical experiments, according to Schlueter and local news reports.

When questioned by Ross, Clark testified that he was not certified to use the Taser and that he had not obtained waivers from Engman, Schlueter or his brother.

"It's something we're going to look at," Ross said of filing criminal charges, according to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. He declined to comment when contacted by ABC News.

Judge Katrina West postponed the hearing, advised Clark of his right against self-incrimination and appointed an attorney to represent him. She also advised Schlueter of his rights.

Schlueter said the move by prosecutors was an attempt to stop him from showing how police used excessive force on Engman. He said he had to shock Engman because he could not get studies on injuries caused by the weapons from Taser International. "I've never, ever heard of a single case like this," Schlueter said.

Ross told the Daily Bulletin that Clark's experiment damaged his credibility as an expert.

Neil Shouse, a former Los Angeles prosecutor, said the case was "very unusual. & This is first time I've heard of something like this," he said.

The state's human experimentation laws require that subjects of medical experiments be given an explanation of the purposes and risks of any experiment. They must give their written consent to participate. Violations can carry penalties of up to one year in jail or a $50,000 fine.

Alexander Capron, a professor of law and medicine at the University of Southern California, and an expert in medical ethics, said the law, which applies to "medical experiments," was intended to apply to medical research.

Told about Schlueter's case, Capron said, "This doesn't sound like research, as that's usually understood."

"If he's allowing himself to be stunned for the purpose of producing evidence in court, the notion that they're engaged in research seems laughable on its face," he said.

A hearing on the contempt charge, to be held before Plough, is scheduled for Friday. Jones' attorneys have asked Plough to remove himself from the case, saying he cannot be impartial.

Plough did not return calls for comment Monday.

Plough's ruling prompted an outcry from defense lawyers, both in Ohio and across the country. Carmen Hernandez, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said in a statement that defense lawyers have an ethical obligation not to start trial if they are not prepared.

"Asking a lawyer to go to trial without preparation is like asking a doctor to perform surgery before diagnosing the patient," she said.

The Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has also intervened.

"The defense bar has been outraged," said Friedman. "Anyone who's heard of this matter has been outraged."

This is not the first time that Plough has come under fire. Earlier this year he reportedly had another public defender arrested for refusing to go forward with a trial, though in a May interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer Plough denied that he had the first lawyer arrested.

In May, Portage County Judge Laurie Pittman complained about Plough to the Ohio Supreme Court's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, saying he intimidated defendants who acted as their own lawyers, according to the Plain Dealer. She said Plough was "making a mockery of justice," according to a letter cited by the Plain Dealer.

Pittman and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel declined to comment. The office has not opened an official investigation into Plough.

In 2003, he became director of the Clinical Prostate Cancer Program at Northwestern University. Washington University sued to keep the samples, and won several federal rulings.

Justice Samuel Alito refused to grant a delay in the federal appeals court decision.