What makes the potential departure of Mr. Lerach particularly shocking is that it would come just as he is engaged in his most high-profile case to date: the shareholder lawsuit against the Wall Street banks that acted as advisers to Enron before it collapsed into bankruptcy in 2001.

While Mr. Lerach has recovered $7.3 billion for shareholders, a federal appeals panel recently ruled that the lawsuit against the remaining defendant banks could not go forward. Since then, Mr. Lerach has been leading a campaign to have the case reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, publicly pressuring and lobbying the Securities and Exchange Commission and its chairman, Christopher Cox, to support his efforts by filing a friend of the court brief in the case.

Still, people who have been briefed on the criminal investigation suggested that Mr. Lerach’s lawyer, John W. Keker, might be trying to make federal prosecutors an offer: Mr. Lerach would resign from the firm in exchange for the firm’s not being indicted.

Calls to Mr. Keker were not returned. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is leading the investigation into illegal payments to plaintiffs, also declined to comment.

When reached on his cellphone Wednesday evening, Mr. Lerach declined to comment on his status at the firm. “I can’t say anything,” he said. Calls made later to his cellphone were not returned, and several calls made to a spokesman for the firm were not returned.

Going quietly into the night would also be a reversal in style for Mr. Lerach.

Boisterous and with a penchant for grandstanding, Mr. Lerach has a long history of being both feared and loathed inside the boardrooms of corporations and insurance companies.

For decades, until Mr. Lerach broke off to start his own firm in 2004, he and his former partner, Melvyn I. Weiss, tackled what they saw as rampant corporate malfeasance, securing rich settlements for shareholders and earning themselves and their firms hundreds of millions of dollars in fees in the process.

But nearly seven years ago, federal prosecutors began examining some of the tactics that had made the firm so powerful. As a result, the New York law firm Milberg Weiss & Bershad and two partners, David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman, were indicted last year, accused of making more than $11 million in secret payments to individuals who served as plaintiffs in more than 150 lawsuits that earned the firm more than $216 million in fees.

Although they were the main targets of the investigation, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Lerach were not indicted, and the government’s case in recent months appeared to have stagnated. Yesterday, lawyers for Mr. Schulman filed a motion to dismiss all charges against him. Some attributed the renewed momentum in the investigation to talks between Mr. Bershad, who is on a leave of absence from the firm, and prosecutors that might result in a guilty plea for his role in what prosecutors have described as a scheme to pay illegal kickbacks to class-action clients, according to another person briefed on the investigation.

It is unclear whether Mr. Bershad will ultimately cooperate with the government in exchange for a lighter sentence.

His lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, declined to comment. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles also declined to comment.

Prosecutors and former partners have said that he handled and kept track of the payments to clients. Concern that Mr. Bershad may try to provide information to prosecutors that could strengthen their case against Milberg Weiss prompted at least two of its partners, Ariana J. Tadler and Brad N. Friedman, to meet with prosecutors in Los Angeles in an attempt to reach a deal that does not require the firm to acknowledge any wrongdoing, according to the person briefed on the case.

Calls to Ms. Tadler and Mr. Friedman were not returned.

Milberg Weiss said in a statement: “We have heard reports that David J. Bershad apparently plans to plead guilty to some of the charges that have been asserted against him. We believed his prior statements to us that he had done nothing wrong and committed no crime. We intend to take steps necessary to protect the interests of our clients and of the many uninvolved firm lawyers and staff who have demonstrated their dedication to the firm in carrying out the important work we do on behalf of investors and consumers.”

Mr. Weiss’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said: “Mr. Weiss has not been charged with any criminal conduct whatsoever. He fully intends to continue practicing law and will continue to offer his clients the same extraordinary legal representation that he has provided for the past 40 years while at the same time continuing the wonderful philanthropic work that he has been devoted to for his entire life.”

While it would be unusual for the government to accept a deal in which Mr. Lerach retired from his firm, it was certainly not impossible, lawyers said.

“I have been involved in many cases where we have had nonstandard results. So is it possible? The answer is yes,” said Sean O’Shea, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who is not involved in Mr. Lerach’s case.

The government’s investigation into the tactics of the plaintiffs’ lawyers began in the late 1990s when a Beverly Hills ophthalmologist, Steven G. Cooperman, who had been convicted of art insurance fraud charges, offered to provide evidence against Milberg Weiss in exchange for a reduced sentence about his role as a frequent plaintiff in shareholder lawsuits filed by the firm.

Over the next few years, prosecutors combed through decades of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses.

According to the charges, the scheme involving the paid plaintiffs worked like this: Plaintiffs would buy securities anticipating that they would decline in value, hence positioning themselves to be named plaintiffs in the class actions. After the court in a lawsuit awarded lawyers’ fees, the firm and Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman gave cash directly to the plaintiffs or to intermediary lawyers. The firm then falsely accounted for the payments as referral fees or professional fees, the indictment said.

Under New York law, it is illegal for a lawyer to promise or give anything to induce a person to bring a lawsuit or to reward a person for having done so, the indictment said.

The 20-count indictment against Milberg Weiss and Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman accused them of conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Lawyers for the firm, Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman have denied the charges.

The indictment, however, has hurt Milberg Weiss’s business. The firm has lost several institutional clients, its position in large cases, and had several major lawyers depart the firm.

FBI Assistant Director of Public Affairs John Miller said Wednesday during an interview with C-SPAN that an FBI report expected to be released next week will detail a nationwide increase in murders, robberies and other violent crimes for a second straight year. Miller said the report will likely show "a continued uptick in violent crime, particularly among midsized American cities." Miller also told AP and the New York Daily News that 2,176 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) search warrants were approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in 2006, an increase from 1,754 in 2005.

Miller said most of warrants were issued against search targets inside the United States, and attributed the increase to a "high tempo of terrorist activity." In April of last year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) reported a record number of approved FISA warrants during 2005. The Bush administration has sought amendments to FISA, which it says is inflexible and unable to meet the threat of terrorism.

In December, the FBI's Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report found an increase of 3.7 percent in violent crimes, but a 2.6 percent decrease in property crimes such as burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. In 2005, the FBI's Annual Report on Violent Crime found that violent crimes had increased for the first time since 2001 by 2.3%.

"Anybody who thinks we‘re through has missed the point. This is an ever-changing and evolving target that requires constant vigilance," the governor said.

Late last year, four school districts asked the court to maintain oversight, arguing that while the Legislature had appropriated extra money, it hadn‘t adequately addressed buildings, programs for non-English speakers and money for rapidly growing districts.

"I think we‘ve made tremendous progress as a result of this case and I think the few remaining concerns we have about education are relatively small compared to what‘s been accomplished," Heller said.

"The court has said yes, it‘s about spending more money and showing your commitment to education, but what‘s more important is how you spend it," McDaniel said.

A group of seven House members, led by Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, D-3rd District, agreed, declaring in a statement, "The Supreme Court effectively rolled back efforts to ensure equal pay."

The court's decision, they said, "completely ignores the reality of the workplace and is based on the illogical conclusion that a victim of pay disparity will be able to document - despite the typical office secrecy over income - a discriminatory difference in the salaries within six months. It completely overlooks that a victim may be afraid to file a complaint."

They are pushing the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would allow victims the right to back pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages for intentional wage discrimination. They also will try to ensure that people who have been victims of wage discrimination would not be penalized because of time limitations.

In addition, House and Senate members - including some men - will introduce new legislation to clarify the intent of the Civil Rights Act in regard to pay discrimination.

The act says that any charge must be filed within 180 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." The Supreme Court ruled this week that the 180 days begins on the date an employer makes the initial pay-setting decision. But opponents want the time to run from the date an employee gets a check with discriminatory pay, making it easier for potential victims to seek help.

Two months after losing its San Diego office managing partner, Buchanan Ingersoll said Thursday it has acquired seven-lawyer San Diego law firm Alhadeff & Solar. Buchanan said it will maintain its four-lawyer office in Del Mar, Calif., as well as its new one in downtown San Diego that opens officially Friday.

The latest additions are led by partners Sam Alhadeff and Keith Solar, who handle business law, litigation and water law matters, among others. Solar's practice revolves around water law and in the tuna industry, with clients such as Basin Water Inc., South Pacific Tuna Corp., Chicken of the Sea International and FCF Fishery Co. Alhadeff has a land-use and environmental law practice with clients such as Beazer Homes, Lennar Corp., D.R. Horton. Inc., Standard Pacific Homes, Pulte Homes Inc./Del Webb and Meritage Homes Corp.

The acquisition comes after the April 3 departures of San Diego office managing partner Daniel T. Pascucci, who also led the firm's California litigation practice, and intellectual property litigation partner Andrew Skale for Boston's Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo.

Buchanan Ingersoll is based in Pittsburgh and has 80 lawyers in Philadelphia. It has 550 lawyers firmwide.

The disclosure that the two watchdogs are focusing on the Civil Rights Division marks an expansion to a new arena of the Justice Department of an ongoing investigation into whether politics played a role in the firing of nine US attorneys in 2006. The probe has widened to encompass allegations that the administration has used its control of the Justice Department to gain a partisan edge.

"This is to notify you that we have expanded the scope of our investigation to include allegations regarding improper political and other considerations in hiring decisions within the Department of Justice," wrote Inspector General Glenn Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief Marshall Jarrett , who are conducting a joint inquiry.

Under federal law, officials may not take political affiliation into account when hiring career professionals, permanent, non-partisan employees who stay on when an administration changes. But last week, a former aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales , Monica Goodling , told Congress that she had "crossed the line" by attempting to block liberal applicants from being hired as career assistant prosecutors and immigration judges.

Goodling, a key figure in the US attorney firings who resigned in April, was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for her testimony. While it was known that Goodling's hiring practices were under investigation, the letter made clear for the first time that the internal probe has now been extended to hiring by other administration appointees as well.

"Among the issues that we intend to investigate are allegations regarding Monica Goodling's and others' actions in DOJ hiring and personnel decisions; allegations concerning hiring for the DOJ Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program; and allegations concerning hiring practices in the DOJ Civil Rights Division," they wrote.

The offices did not disclose whom else they are investigating. Dean Boyd , a Justice spokesman, declined to comment on the probe's expansion.