"This is sickening," Prosecutor Bill Mason said Wednesday. "The charitable trust established by Father O'Dea continues his life's work of giving to others even after his death. This attorney's theft of trust assets is, in effect, stealing from the poor and needy. He is without conscience."

Mason said Economic Crimes Unit prosecutors already have negotiated a plea deal with Parrish and his lawyer that would require him to repay $250,000 to the trust and to plead guilty to an aggravated theft charge.

Parrish already has repaid $83,000, and filed a request with the Ohio Supreme Court to assume inactive status as a lawyer, said his attorney, James Sammon.

"We have worked diligently to resolve the estate in probate court," Sammon said. "And he is in the process of winding down his law practice."

When he died, O'Dea was 92 and under the care of the Little Sisters of the Poor at their home in Warrensville Heights. He had served as pastor of St. Mary's Church in Hudson and St. Peter's Church in Lorain.

One of the trustees of O'Dea's charitable trust account noticed suspicious bank activity, and reported it to the Cleveland Bar Association. Bar officials contacted the prosecutor's office.

Jenner & Block, a Chicago-based law firm that focuses on litigation, is shifting 15 to 20 of its equity partners to non-equity status, the National Law Journal reported Monday, citing anonymous sources.

Some of the partners are being asked to leave and a smaller number are opting for voluntary retirement, the legal newspaper said.

The firm's management last month began to move forward with the plan to cut some of the equity partners during the next year or two, according to anonymous sources cited in the Law Journal.

Though it eliminates the security of partnership -- once as honored as tenure at a university -- de-equitizing partners is a means to boost the average profits earned by equity partners to retain rainmakers and lure new talent. Equity-per-partner rankings have become the industry's measuring stick in the absence of any other accepted method, making demotions from partnership increasingly common.

In March Chicago-based Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP announced its decision to purge 45 partners amid revenue growth of 11 percent in 2006. The conservative firm, one of the nation's 10 largest in 2006, topped $1 billion in revenues for the first time in its 125-year history. Sidley Austin demoted more than 30 partners in an effort to be more competitive more than eight years earlier.

Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

ATLANTA - Genarlow Wilson's joy was short-lived. One minute, a judge ordered him released from prison, saying the young man's 10-year sentence for consensual sex between teens was a "grave miscarriage of justice." Ninety minutes later, Georgia's attorney general said Wilson wasn't going anywhere — the state had appealed.

"Yesterday, they did not consent to a bond," attorney B.J. Bernstein said Tuesday on CNN. "We are hopeful to hurry up and get in front of a judge — one, to get him out pending an appeal, but even more importantly, to get this madness over with."

Wilson became a symbol for extreme cases of getting tough on sex offenders when he was sentenced to the mandatory 10-year sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl in 2003, when Wilson was 17.

Lawmakers last year voted to close that loophole, but the state's top court said the new law could not be applied retroactively to Wilson's case.

Opponents of Wilson's release said it could lead to similar legal challenges. Georgia prisons currently hold 189 inmates who were sentenced for aggravated child molestation when they were 21 or younger.

"The fact that Genarlow Wilson has spent two years in prison for what is now classified as a misdemeanor, and without assistance from this Court, will spend eight more years in prison, is a grave miscarriage of justice," the judge wrote. "If this court or any court cannot recognize the injustice of what has occurred here, then our court system has lost sight of the goal our judicial system has always strived to accomplish ... justice being served in a fair and equal manner."

He said he would seek an expedited ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court. And he noted that a plea deal is on the table that would spring Wilson in a maximum of five years and also remove him from the sex offender registry.

"It is really ridiculous when you consider that we had a judge that just said it is a misdemeanor that carries no sex offender registration," she said. "It is extremely, extremely disturbing that the attorney general would take this action now."

Wilson also was charged with rape for being one of several male partygoers at the Douglas County hotel to have sex with another 17-year-old girl, but was acquitted. The party was captured on a videotape that was played for the jury. Five other male partygoers took plea deals in the case. One has been released from prison and is now in college.

"He wants to speak out to young people about realizing that when you party and carry on, you've got consequences sometimes grater than you realize. I think because of his extraordinary personality, he'll be OK, but I don't want this to happen to any other kid. It's crazy."

Republicans and business advocates warned that making that change could make business executives liable for actions taken by managers who had left a company long ago.

"At the end of the day, such a loophole conceivably could allow a retiring employee to seek damages against a company now led by executives who had nothing to do with the initial act of discrimination," said Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon of California, top Republican on the Education and Labor Committee.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to throw out a Goodyear employee's complaint that she earned thousands of dollars less than her male counterparts.

Under the court's decision, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee think it involves race, sex, religion or national origin.

Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., sued right before she retired. She ended a 19-year career making $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor, and she claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.

The court's five most conservative members said the woman waited too long to complain. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in dissent for the court's four liberal members, urged Congress to amend the law.

Advocates said six months is not enough time to build a case and decide whether a lawsuit is warranted, given how secretive people are about their salaries and companies are about their decisions on raises.

Since December 2005, juries in Pennsylvania and California have awarded Wal-Mart workers $251 million in pay and damages after deciding the retailer didn't properly compensate them for overtime and breaks. Wal-Mart, the largest U.S. employer with 1.9 million workers, faces more than 70 other U.S. wage-and-hour suits, including class actions.
Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., is "exploring options for appeal," in the New Mexico and Missouri cases, spokesman John Simley said. "These decisions were not on the merits of the case, but only on whether they should proceed as class actions."

"Even more courts across the country have found that cases like these are not suited for class treatment," Simley said. "An example of that came in New York today, where the court found in favor of Wal-Mart on every aspect of class certification analysis."

Individual circumstances are too varied and the group of people too broad to weigh the New York case as a group, Platkin wrote, noting that "not each and every individual who was ever an hourly employee of defendant during the relevant time period worked without pay, nor was every hourly employee deprived of premium pay for overtime hours."
Including a larger group would "result in miniscule individual awards of damages to class members," Platkin wrote.

In Missouri, Wal-Mart lost a bid to reverse class certification of a similar lawsuit when an a state appeals court upheld a lower court decision granting hourly workers in that state the right to sue as a group.

The Missouri decision expanded the lawsuit by changing the case from an opt-in action, which requires workers to ask to join the suit, to an opt-out suit, which makes hourly workers part of the litigation automatically unless they ask to be let out.

The decision means that Wal-Mart will be facing a group suit by more than 200,000 current and former hourly workers in Missouri, rather than a lawsuit by several hundred or several thousand. Typically, a small number of potential plaintiffs would opt into a suit.

"This gives these people their day in court," said attorney Steve Long, who represents the Missouri workers. He said he would be seeking a trial in 2008.
The Court of Appeals of New Mexico on Tuesday upheld a 2005 lower court's decision granting class action status to Wal-Mart hourly workers in that state who claim they worked off the clock without compensation and missed rest breaks. The New Mexico class would include about 40,000 current and former Wal-Mart hourly employees, said attorney Jerry Bader, who represents the workers.

In New York, while the workers could bring individual claims against Wal-Mart, the cost of pursuing these suits would be too high, said Jonathan Selbin, an attorney for the workers there.
"These are not claims these people could realistically bring without a class action," he said. "Obviously we're disappointed. We plan to appeal. We think the judge got it wrong."
The lawsuit claimed that Wal-Mart required its hourly employees to work off the clock and through breaks and would have covered unpaid workers as far back as August 1995, he said.

With another challenge to the law pending in federal court, it was unclear if the state could begin requiring voters to show identification at the polls.

For months, lawyers have been battling over the law, one of several passed recently across the country.

Opponents claim the photo ID law will disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly who don't have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.

The law's mostly Republican supporters say it is needed to prevent voter fraud and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. No examples of in-person voter fraud have been presented, though the proposal's backers often mention the threat of noncitizens casting illegal ballots.

Monday's ruling, written by Justice Harold Melton, said that plaintiff Rosalind Lake was not harmed by the voter ID law and lacked standing to challenge it since she was exempt as a first-time voter.

The Secretary of State's office, which enforces voting law, did not immediately comment. But the law's sponsor, state Sen. Cecil Staton, said the court's opinion reinforced the Legislature's intent when it passed the law last year.

"It gives credence to our position all along that the argument that there are many, many people who are harmed by this law is just not correct," said Staton, a Macon Republican. "They didn't even have a plaintiff who's been harmed."

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, vowed to "continue to fight this battle in federal court."

At the federal level, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down an earlier version of the law in 2005, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Legislature addressed his complaints in a subsequent version, but he blocked the law again in September, saying the bill isn't in the public's interest. An appeal is pending.

Other states have faced similar legal battles over requiring voters to have photo IDs.

In Arizona, the law survived court challenges, and voters have had to show a photo ID to vote since 2006. In Missouri, the state Supreme Court in October struck down a law that required voters there to show a photo identification.

A federal appeals court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in January, saying it has the potential to do more good than harm. A month later, a New Mexico federal judge struck down the city of Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance.