Attorneys for former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy said Wednesday they see a positive sign in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling.

Like Skilling, some of the charges against Siegelman and Scrushy involved charges that make it a crime to deprive the public of "the intangible right to honest services."

Critics have complained that the 28-word "honest services" law is vague and sometimes used by prosecutors when they are unable to prove another crime was committed.

Siegelman attorney Sam Heldman said the Supreme Court's decision to hear three different cases involving "honest services" charges is a sign that the law is "broad and confusing."

"It shows that some members of the court are concerned prosecutors are overreaching in this whole area of the law," Heldman said.

U.S. Justice Department spokeswoman Laura Sweeney declined to comment.

Siegelman and Scrushy are waiting to hear if the U.S. Supreme Court will review appeals of their convictions in a government corruption case. They were convicted of bribery, "honest services" mail fraud and other charges in 2006. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year threw out two charges against Siegelman, but rejected most of his appeal and denied Scrushy's.

The two have also asked U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller in Montgomery to grant them a new trial, citing misconduct by prosecutors, inappropriate communications between jurors and other issues.

Siegelman was accused of appointing Scrushy to an influential hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman's campaign for a statewide lottery. The appeals to the Supreme Court focus heavily on whether prosecutors proved that Siegelman and Scrushy had a "quid pro quo" agreement where they would each receive something of value.

A cadre of murderers and rapists, several of whom victimized young girls, will be set free from North Carolina prisons this month after state courts agreed that a decades-old law defined life sentences as only 80 years long.

Dozens more inmates could be released in the coming months unless the state can figure out a legal recourse to keep them behind bars, officials said Thursday. Gov. Beverly Perdue called them "dangerous criminals" who have repeatedly been denied parole.

"I'm appalled that the state of North Carolina is being forced to release prisoners who have committed the most heinous of crimes, without any review of their cases," Perdue said in a statement.

One of the 20 inmates set for release, Bobby Bowden, had argued that a law adopted in 1974 clearly defined life sentences as just 80 years. The 60-year-old convicted murderer believed that the statute, combined with good conduct credits, means his life sentence is now complete.

The Court of Appeals sided with Bowden last year. North Carolina's Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the state earlier this month after a lawyer from the attorney general's office had argued that the 80-year figure was ambiguous and likely meant to determine when somebody would be eligible for parole.

Washington's secretary of state can release the names and addresses of people who signed petitions calling for a public vote on the state's expanded benefits for domestic partners, a federal appeals court said Thursday.

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle in Tacoma to block release of the petitions.

Settle held that releasing the names could chill the First Amendment rights of petition signers.

Stephen Pidgeon, an attorney for the petition sponsors, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Despite the appeals court ruling, the names weren't immediately released.

Janelle Guthrie, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Rob McKenna, said her office must now ask a Thurston County judge to lift a temporary restraining order issued Wednesday forbidding the release of the petitions until the 9th Circuit could rule.

Newly released court documents say the newsman accused of blackmailing David Letterman about his sexual affairs told the TV host's attorney that his client's world was about to collapse around him.

The documents say CBS News producer Robert "Joe" Halderman allegedly told Letterman's attorney that he needed to "make a large chunk of money."

Halderman has pleaded not guilty to trying to extort $2 million from the comedian. Documents in the case were released Thursday in Norwalk Superior Court.

Letterman is not named specifically in the documents, but they refer to Jackoway's "Client No. 1" as a public figure who faced the threat of "a ruined reputation" and damage to his career and family life.

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered two estate planning companies and their co-owners to pay nearly $6.4 million, the state's largest-ever fine for the fraudulent practice of law.

The owners and employees of American Family Prepaid Legal Corp. and Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services Inc. of Columbus committed more than 3,800 acts of unauthorized law practice by participating in a "trust mill" operation, the court said.

The ruling comes about six years after a complaint by the Columbus Bar Association against the companies was resolved when American Family, Heritage and its owners signed an agreement in which they promised to stop marketing and preparing trusts and other estate planning services.

From March 2003 to March 2005, the companies targeted Ohioans 65 and older with exaggerated mail and magazine advertising aimed at dissuading them from obtaining a will. Sales representatives who were not licensed as attorneys to advise on estate planning gave "high-pressure" in-home presentations in which customers were told they would save money by purchasing one of the companies' living trusts, the court said.

The court permanently barred the California-based companies, and co-owners Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, from marketing, selling or preparing living trusts, estate planning documents and other legal services in Ohio. Other company employees were ordered to pay fines ranging from $2,500 to $10,000.

The court noted that it has found other similar trust mills illegal, and that such trusts may not be needed, may be insufficient or could be harmful for certain people.

On Wednesday, Roberts offered a new take on that argument in a Supreme Court case about whether lawyers who sued to force changes in Georgia's foster care program could receive extra pay for their efforts.

A federal judge awarded the lawyers an extra $4.5 million on top of the $6 million they were due under a formula. U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob said their work was the best he'd seen in 27 years on the bench. Georgia appealed Shoob's decision.

Roberts was skeptical of Shoob's reasoning and the argument in defense of the extra money, which the court has previously said could be paid in undefined exceptional circumstances.

"The results obtained under our theory should be what the law requires, and not different results because you have different lawyers," Roberts said.

He said a judge who suggests otherwise appears to be saying, "'If you weren't there, I would have made a mistake on the law.'"

Paul Clement, the former top Supreme Court lawyer for the Bush administration, replied that capable lawyers can affect the outcome, a point not seriously in doubt in a court that regularly hears from the same band of high-priced appellate lawyers.

Finally, Roberts said good-naturedly: "Maybe we have a different perspective. You think the lawyers are responsible for a good result, and I think the judges are."

Clement responded, "And maybe your perspective's changed, Your Honor." Roberts was a top Supreme Court advocate before he became an appellate judge, earning more than $1 million in his final year in private practice.