Before a federal judge, Justice Department prosecutors will lay out the dirty laundry of the company best known for its elegant Mercedes-Benz autos: a pattern of bribery that for many decades has helped fuel the company's sales and illicitly added millions of dollars to its profits. As a result, the company has agreed to pay $185 million in fines.

According to court papers filed March 24, the company's board 11 years ago adopted an integrity code with anti-bribery provisions. The problem is, Daimler failed to enforce it; many Daimler executives actively resisted it, and improper payments continued until 2008.

The court papers provide a case study of how executives at one of the world's blue chip companies responded when governments said "no" to bribery.

Of course, Daimler, through its subsidiaries, is hardly the first corporate giant to be caught paying off foreign officials to get contracts.

In December 2008, for example, engineering company Siemens AG agreed to pay more than $1 billion in fines in Germany and the U.S. after being accused of bribing officials with suitcases stuffed with money.

Ten years earlier, Germany ratified an international anti-bribery agreement; an implementing law took effect in early 1999.

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that lawyers for people thinking of pleading guilty to a crime must advise their clients who are not citizens about the possibility that they will be deported.

Likening deportation to the punishments of banishment and exile, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for five justices, said the Constitution guaranteed competent legal advice on at least some collateral consequences of guilty pleas.

“It is our responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that no criminal defendant — whether a citizen or not — is left to the mercies of incompetent counsel,” Justice Stevens wrote.

The vote was 7 to 2, though two justices in the majority would have required only that criminal defense lawyers not say anything false and tell their clients to consult an immigration lawyer if they had questions.

The case involved Jose Padilla, a native of Honduras who has lived in the United States for 40 years, served in the Vietnam War and is a legal permanent resident. Mr. Padilla, a commercial truck driver, was arrested in 2001 after the authorities in Kentucky found more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana in his truck.

Mr. Padilla pleaded guilty to marijuana trafficking, a felony, and received a five-year sentence. He later said he had agreed to the plea based on his lawyer’s incorrect advice that it would not affect his immigration status. In fact, the plea made it all but certain that Mr. Padilla would be deported once he served his time.

The question in the case, Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08-651, was whether bad legal advice about a collateral consequence of a guilty plea could amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

The Lovells law firm plans to close its Chicago office by the end of October, sending 22 lawyers and 25 other employees scrambling to find work.

The London firm is set to merge with Washington-based Hogan & Hartson on May 1, creating one of the world's largest law firms with $1.8 billion in revenue and 2,500 lawyers in 40 offices. But the new firm, to be called Hogan Lovells, will not have a presence in Chicago.
Lovells said it decided to exit the city after 15 years because the performance of the Chicago office has declined in recent years.

In a statement Tuesday, David Harris, Lovells managing partner, said: "[The reinsurance market] is an area which has seen changes in work patterns and the office has been affected by a number of significant conflict situations. Despite the best efforts of partners in Chicago and elsewhere, this has had an impact on the office's overall performance in recent years and the position is not expected to change."

Conflicts and deteriorating performance had contributed to departures from the Chicago office in recent months. The office used to have more than 30 lawyers.

Yet, legal observers in Chicago said they thought the merger with Hogan would save the office. The decision to shut down was made independent of the merger, Harris said.

But the just-enacted health care overhaul law contains a provision that changed the federal False Claims Act in a way that would appear to allow new, similar lawsuits to go forward.

The court voted 7-2 to hold that a technical, though important aspect, of the federal whistleblower law applies to local governments. One section of the law prohibits whistleblower lawsuits when public disclosure of the alleged fraud occurs through a court hearing, a news report or congressional or administrative audit.

In an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court ruled that the language on administrative audits refers to a report prepared by any government, not just a federal government document. The question had divided federal appeals courts.

Justice Sotomayor dissented, saying her colleagues "misread the statutory text" to limit whistleblower claims. Justice Stephen Breyer joined the dissenting opinion.

But, in any event, the health care legislation signed by President Barack Obama last week changed the false claims law so that it now refers specifically to federal reports. Stevens noted the change in a footnote to his opinion, but said it did not affect pending lawsuits.

Secured creditors are owed about $300 million by owners of The Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News. They want to use that "IOU" to make a so-called "credit bid" for the company.

The auction is scheduled for April 27. A local group that includes current investor Bruce Toll, the housing company founder, and chemical company heir David Haas has made an opening $67 million bid.

A federal appeals panel issued a 2-1 decision this month that lets Philadelphia Newspapers deny creditors the right to bid with the money owed them. The lenders this week asked the full 13-judge court to hear their appeal, charging that the ruling upends decades of precedent and will disrupt the credit industry.

"The panel decision in this case represents a startling break with decades of established bankruptcy practice and a repudiation of basic principles of bankruptcy law," the creditors wrote in the 122-page motion filed Monday.

A South Korean woman who worked as an escrow agent at a Seattle law firm for 16 months has been charged with 114 counts of theft after authorities said she embezzled more than $825,000 from her employer.

Heather "Veronica" Pak, 41, was arrested by Seattle police last week and has since been charged with the felonies. She is being held at the King County Jail in lieu of $300,000 bail.

According to police, Pak embezzled funds designated for the Shim Law Firm via checks, credit cards and real-estate transactions.

As the law firm's escrow agent, Pak had signing authority on the firm's trust accounts at Pacific International Bank and Bank of America, court papers said. She was authorized to write business checks and had access to a company credit card, which authorities say she used for personal spending, charging documents said.

Pak also collected insurance money for the firm's personal-injury clients. In one case, she allegedly forged the signature of a client so she could intercept a $7,500 payment, court charging papers said.

Pak wrote a series of checks that conveyed $20,000 to her sister, $161,799 to her brother, $98,500 to herself and $78,891 to a man who turned what he received back over to Pak, court charging papers said.