K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh’s largest law firm, said Monday it has established an office in Warsaw, marking its 36th location and third new site so far this year. It is the first Pittsburgh-based firm to open an office in the Polish city.

The office is expected to open March 15. K&L Gates hired a team of lawyers from Hogan & Hartson Jamka, the Warsaw office of Washington, D.C.-based Hogan & Hartson LLP, to staff it. Maciej Jamka will serve as administrative partner of K&L Gates’ Warsaw office which K&L Gates Chairman and Global Managing Partner Peter Kalis said via e-mail will include “approximately 30 lawyers.”

Kalis said Warsaw is a strategic location. “Poland is a Top 20 global economy and one that has withstood the challenges of the global financial crisis,” Kalis said in a prepared statement.

In January, K&L Gates opened offices in Tokyo and Moscow. It employs roughly 2,000 lawyers, including 237 in Pittsburgh, and topped $1 billion in 2009 revenue.

K&L Gates expects to move into new offices in Downtown Pittsburgh in One Oliver Plaza, a few blocks from its present home in the Henry W. Oliver Building, later this month. The date has not been disclosed publicly.

The D.C. office of law firm Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP has relocated its headquarters to larger space downtown.

The firm said that its new location, on the top floor of 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, more than doubles the size of its offices and will allow for continued expansion of its practice.

"This relocation marks an important step in Curtis’ ongoing expansion in Washington,” said D.C. Managing Partner Daniel Lenihan.

The firm said that it has added four senior lawyers to its D.C. office since December 2008.

According to its Web site, Curtis has three U.S. offices with 16 professionals working in Washington, five working in Houston and more than 100 based in New York. In addition, Curtis has 10 international offices.

Arthur Nadel, a former Florida fund manager dubbed a "mini-Madoff" for running a decade-long investment fraud of nearly $400 million, pleaded guilty on Wednesday to criminal charges.

Nadel, 77, disappeared for two weeks before his arrest in January 2009. He had left a letter for his wife imploring her to use a trust fund for her benefit and "sell the Subaru if you need money," a reference to their motor vehicle.

The FBI arrested Sarasota, Florida-based Nadel in his home state, but the case was moved to New York because he traded through a brokerage in the city, Shoreline Trading, an affiliate of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Nadel, who looked frail in court and remained seated throughout the proceeding, pleaded guilty to an indictment of 15 charges, including securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud before Manhattan federal court Judge John Koeltl.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday explored the tension between Americans' right to free speech and a federal law that prohibits aid to terrorist groups, and hardly anyone seemed clear about the lines of demarcation.

The case stems from a challenge to an antiterrorism act by American advocates who say they want to support only the peaceful efforts of groups that the State Department has deemed to be terrorist organizations.

"This is a difficult case for me," allowed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whose vote often is the one that decides closely divided cases.

Georgetown law professor David D. Cole, who represents the Humanitarian Law Project, said his clients do not want to provide material support to the groups, but only to help them pursue peaceful ways to end conflict. "The government has spent a decade arguing that our clients cannot advocate for peace, cannot inform about international human rights," Cole told the court.

The project wants to support the lawful activities of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a militant group in Turkey known as the PKK, and a Sri Lankan group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Both are among dozens of organizations on the State Department list, along with better-known groups such as al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan countered that, as individuals, Cole's clients can advocate whatever they want. But Congress was within its rights, she said, to determine that it was impossible to separate support of any terrorist group's peaceful activities from its violent goals.

A UC Berkeley constitutional law professor and civil rights advocate was nominated Wednesday by President Obama to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Goodwin Liu, 39, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, learned English in kindergarten and later became an honors graduate at Stanford and a Rhodes Scholar. He has taught at Berkeley since 2003 and was named associate dean of the law school in 2008.

He also worked as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and as a special assistant to the deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

Liu is one of two Asian Americans nominated by Obama to the federal appeals courts, which now have no active Asian American judges. The Ninth Circuit handles federal cases from California and eight other Western states and has three vacancies among its 29 authorized judgeships.

"Goodwin Liu is an outstanding teacher, a brilliant scholar and an exceptional public servant," said the law school's dean, Christopher Edley.

The nomination also won praise from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and from Tom Campbell, a UC Berkeley business professor and former congressman who is seeking the Republican nomination to run against Boxer.

Campbell said Liu would bring "scholarly distinction and a strong reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness and collegiality to the Ninth Circuit."

But Senate confirmation may not be routine. Some of Liu's positions could draw conservative opposition, which has held up other judicial nominees.

Liu testified in January 2006 against President George W. Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, saying Alito's judicial opinions were well-reasoned but indicated a tilt in favor of prosecutors and the government. He did not testify against Chief Justice John Roberts but told a reporter before the 2005 confirmation hearing that he thought Roberts would move the court to the right.

To loyal users, Yelp.com is a helpful way to find and share reviews of local businesses, but some business owners claim that the website's business practices represent something closer to an extortion scheme.

Miami-based law firm Beck & Lee has joined with a San Diego firm to file a class action suit against the company, according to Mashable. The plaintiff in the suit, a Long Beach Veternary Hospital claims it contacted Yelp to see if it could delete a bad review. At first the representative refused, but then offered to hide or delete the review for about $300 a month.

The East Bay Express ran a story last year claiming that Yelp was essentially "the business of extortion 2.0."

During interviews with dozens of business owners over a span of several months, six people told this newspaper that Yelp sales representatives promised to move or remove negative reviews if their business would advertise. In another six instances, positive reviews disappeared -- or negative ones appeared -- after owners declined to advertise.

Because they were often asked to advertise soon after receiving negative reviews, many of these business owners believe Yelp employees use such reviews as sales leads. Several, including John, even suspect Yelp employees of writing them. Indeed, Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. And in at least one documented instance, a business owner who refused to advertise subsequently received a negative review from a Yelp employee.

Yelp immediately denied any wrong doing and claimed the story was inaccurate.

"While we haven't seen the suit yet, anyone can file one, and since the allegations are false we will dispute them aggressively," a Yelp representative tells Mashable regarding the latest suit.