Carpenter Percy Honniball enjoys practicing his craft in the nude and, according to at least one Alameda County Superior Court judge, there is nothing legally wrong with that.

Judge Julie Conger found Honniball not guilty of indecent exposure Thursday for being naked while he worked in a Montclair home last year.

Honniball, who has a history of not wearing clothes while working, was caught in the buff in 2005 as he made repairs to the home. A neighbor had called police.

At the time, Honniball, 51, said he was more comfortable working naked and didn't want to get his clothes dirty as he sawed wood and nailed cabinets together.

Police arrested Honniball for indecent exposure, a crime that includes public nudity and acting lewdly by intending to direct attention to one's genitals for sexual gratification.

If convicted of indecent exposure, a person could be sentenced to a year in jail and be required to register as a sex offender.

While there is no dispute Honniball was naked, Conger found that the carpenter was not acting lewdly, nor did he attempt to bring attention to his genitals for the purpose of sexual gratification.

"What he learned was that you can get in trouble even when you do legal things," said David Beauvais, Honniball's attorney. "Even though there is a reaction, on the part of some people, to nudity . . . it is not enough to charge somebody with this."

Honniball could not be reached for comment, but last year he said in an interview, "The primary reason is so I won't dirty my clothes and have to get into my truck with dusty clothes on. "It's more comfortable," he said.

Honniball knew working in the nude caused problems.

The carpenter was caught three times working naked in Berkeley. In 2003, he was given two years probation for violating Berkeley's ban on public nudity.

Oakland does not have such a ban.

"For Honniball, he feels that it facilitates his work; he has better range of movement," Beauvais said. "I could tell you some stories about nail guns, but we won't get into that."

New York law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges plans to open an office in Hong Kong in October to serve its private equity and corporate clients.

The office, which was approved by the Hong Kong authorities in August, will have five attorneys: two New York partners, Akiko Mikumo and Peter Feist; a Shanghai partner, David Meredith; and two associates. The group will focus on private equity and project finance, Feist said.

The 1,200-attorney Weil firm, whose private equity clients with Chinese operations include Bain Capital and Providence Equity Partners, is the last of the five largest New York firms to open in Hong Kong.

"In order to get the most out of our Asia practice, we had to be in Hong Kong," said Mikumo, who is a member of the firm's management committee and will be managing partner of the new office. "Once you're in Shanghai, you need to be in the key financial centers."

The firm, which opened its Shanghai office three years ago, intends to use Hong Kong as its base for representing clients in Asia. Weil has plans to open an office in Beijing next and is in the process of applying for a license. Tokyo "would be a natural next step," Mikumo said.

Feist said: "There are so many foreign investors asking about doing business in mainland China and how to deal with the regulatory environment. The whole modus operandi is so different from how U.S. businesses are run."

Though the U.S. subprime crisis has virtually halted private equity activity in the United States, Feist said he was not worried about the firm's prospects in Hong Kong.

"I don't expect the private equity firms to stop looking at the opportunities in Asia," said Feist, who moved to Hong Kong on Monday.

The firm's clients did not ask the firm to open an office in Hong Kong, though "private equity clients had voiced their concern," Mikumo said.

The Hong Kong office will look to hire additional lawyers, including intellectual property and general corporate practitioners, after the opening, she said.

"We're going to start modestly," Mikumo said. "It's easy to hire laterals if you have an office there. The firm wanted people from the home office to start operations."

Weil, whose clients include General Electric, Reuters, Johnson & Johnson and Koch Industries, had revenue of $1.05 billion in 2006, the ninth-highest among U.S. law firms, according to the trade publication American Lawyer.

Weil was fourth among legal advisers to principals in mergers and acquisitions deals involving private equity in 2007, according to Bloomberg data. The firm provided advice on 48 deals worth a total of $129.7 billion. Sullivan & Cromwell is first with $205.7 billion in private equity deals.

http://www.weil.com

The state's highest court, reversing two lower court decisions, ruled that a nationwide class was not appropriate for the lawsuit. The suit had been brought by a union health plan on behalf of all insurance plans that paid for Vioxx prescriptions, or about 80 percent of all Vioxx sold.

A lawyer for the New Jersey union said that because the state's consumer fraud law allows for triple damages, the case could have cost Merck $15 billion to $18 billion. The company's annual revenue last year was $22.6 billion.

Had the class action been allowed to proceed, it also would have been a major setback to the company's strategy of fighting the Vioxx lawsuits individually. Of the cases that have reached verdicts, Merck has won nine and lost five. A new trial was ordered in one case, and two others ended in mistrials this year.

Shares of Merck, which is based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., rose more than 2 percent, to $50.47, Thursday.

"We were thrilled with the decision," said John Beisner, who argued the case for Merck.

Christopher A. Seeger, lead lawyer for the plaintiff, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 in West Caldwell, N.J., said he would pursue separate claims on behalf of individual health plans. He said that the high court did not rule that the state's consumer fraud law could not be applied to health plans from other states, so those claims could still be pursued in New Jersey, with the possibility of triple damages.

"Merck temporarily dodged a bullet," he said. "Merck didn't totally dodge the bullet."

The ACLU sued on behalf of an anonymous internet service provider, which was served an NSL about one of the websites it hosted.  The ISP contested the order, which the FBI subsequently dropped, but the ISP remains unable to even acknowledge that it got a request, and the company's president said he's been forced to lie to his friends and girlfriend about it.

Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York ruled that the gag order and the strict rules about how to contest them amounted to prior restraint on speech and allowed the FBI to pick and choose which persons would be gagged, based on whether the feds believed the target might speak critically of the government.  Judge Marrero found, in a 106 page opinion, that the gag order provisions couldn't be struck down without affecting the rest of the statute so he found that the entire NSL provision was unconstitutional.  He also stuck down a provision that prescribed the standards courts should use in judging the FBI's arguments for keeping gag orders.  Marrero wrote that Congress had overstepped its bounds in setting out those standards.

But the ruling by the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that said the land transfer was a sham. The appeals court had ruled before the land transfer that the cross was unconstitutional.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve—like a donut hole with the cross atop it—will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.

Peter Eliasberg, an attorney with the ACLU, said his organization sued to remove the cross from its remote resting place outside Barstow because it was clearly a religious item being supported by the federal government.

"I hope this stops the litigation and the waste of taxpayers money," Eliasberg said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted with the majority, said in a separate opinion supporting his decision that racial balance is a worthy goal for school districts and that districts can use other methods to achieve it.

That opinion has both the district and the parent group, Parents Involved in Community Schools, declaring victory. It's one reason the district, which spent about $434,000 on its portion of the seven-year battle, doesn't believe it should have to pay the plaintiffs' fees.

Technically, the parents group still has to get a U.S. district judge to declare them the "prevailing party," said Seattle Public Schools attorney Shannon McMinimee.

McMinimee says it's "disingenuous" for the law firm, Davis Wright Tremaine, to go after money when the firm took the case pro bono. But firm spokesman Mark Usellis said "pro bono" means their clients don't have to pay.

"The thing that's really important to us in a civil-rights case is that Congress specifically and explicitly wrote into the law that if the government is found to have violated citizens' civil rights, then the prevailing party should seek fee recovery," he said.

Most governments can argue, as Seattle Public Schools is, that they don't have much money. But going after the fees helps deter other government bodies from violating civil rights, Usellis said.

The parents who sued the district in 2000 did not seek damages but asked the court to force Seattle to stop using the race-based tiebreaker that prevented their children, who are white, from attending Ballard High School. The district did, in 2002, but continued to fight for the policy in court, eventually making it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to award the fees to the firm. If the firm wins, the fees likely wouldn't be covered by the district's insurance carrier, McMinimee said. So the money would have to come out of the district's $490 million general-fund budget.