The NFL players, like football fans everywhere, will be focused on the playoffs this month and the fierce competition for a spot in the Super Bowl. Their lawyers, however, will be keeping an eye on the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 13, the pro football owners will be asking the high court to rule for the first time that the NFL is shielded from antitrust laws because, while its teams compete on the playing field, they function in business as a "single entity."

If the justices were to agree, the ramifications could be significant, not just for football but all pro sports leagues, say experts in sports law. Freed from the antitrust laws, owners could get together to restrict salaries for players and coaches and raise prices for everything from tickets to stocking caps.

"For the NFL, this case is like buying a lottery ticket. If they win, it's a huge victory, with the potential to be incredibly significant," said Gabe Feldman, who teaches sports law at Tulane University. "If not, they don't lose much."

Sports leagues have long confounded antitrust law because they involve both competition and collaboration. The National Football League is made up of 32 independently owned teams that not only compete on the field, but also compete off the field for players, coaches and the loyalty of fans.

A defunct South Florida law firm run by an attorney now charged with operating a huge Ponzi scheme gave more than $6 million in the past year to charities and nonprofit groups.

A federal bankruptcy court filing details contributions by the firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler to more than 100 organizations. Former firm CEO Scott Rothstein has pleaded not guilty to racketeering and other charges stemming from what prosecutors say was a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme involving legal settlement investments.

The biggest amount was more than $2.5 million to Rothstein's own Rothstein Family Foundation. Big donations also went to Boys and Girls Clubs, arts groups, Jewish organizations and several groups affiliated with professional athletes.

Burns, White & Hickton LLC, Pittsburgh’s tenth-largest law firm, opened two new offices late last month, in Harrisburg, and in Cherry Hill, N.J., bringing its total number of sites to eight.

Burns, White & Hickton, founded in 1987, employs close to 100 lawyers, two-thirds of whom are based in its headquarters on Pittsburgh’s North Shore.

The firm, which focuses on litigation, transportation and transactional law, tripled the number of lawyers in its Philadelphia-area office alone over the past two and a half years.

Vermonters running for office this year are already raising and spending money, but the rules that try to limit the influence of campaign money on government are murky.

Legislators may – again – pass a bill this year limiting donations from individuals, political action committees and parties. But there will be factors that will complicate that decision.

For one thing, it is an election year, a time when lawmakers have typically stayed away from campaign finance bills. And at least four senators are already running for higher office, as are Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie, who presides over the Senate, and Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, the state's chief election officer.

Finally, a new lawsuit, brought by some of the plaintiffs and the lawyer who successfully challenged the state's last set of campaign finance laws before the U.S. Supreme Court, will move forward.

The previous lawsuit by Vermont Right to Life and attorney James Bopp, who frequently challenges states' campaign finance laws, resulted in the country's top court tossing out central parts of Vermont's rules governing money in politics, which were passed in 1998.

Since then, under the advice of Attorney General William Sorrel, the state has operated under the laws that preceded the 1998 changes. Twice lawmakers have passed a bill implementing a new set of campaign finance laws, and twice Gov. James Douglas has vetoed the measure.

Lawmakers have tried to set more stringent limits on contributions from any given donor and especially from PACs and parties. Douglas objects to the way the bills would curb giving by parties.

Georgia’s new “super speeder law,” which went into effect Jan. 1, applies to motorists convicted of driving 85 miles per hour or faster on a multi-lane road or interstate, or 75 miles per hour or faster on a two-lane road.

Gov. Sonny Perdue has said fines collected under the new law could generate $23 million annually for the state’s coffers, and other estimates run as high as $30 million. But at least one Middle Georgia sheriff claims it’s going to create a hardship for the poor.

Emanuel County Sheriff J. Tyson Stephens, a past president of the Georgia Sheriffs' Association, says the new law amounts to yet another tax on citizens, one that will disproportionately deplete the pockets of the poor and lower middle-class.

“Let’s say you have a single mother who’s trying to get about and get her kids to day care and school and herself to work, and she slips up and has a ticket,” explains Stephens. “She pays that fine with her local jurisdiction, and then it goes to Driver Services, and they send her a notice sometime later she’s being assessed $200 on [her] super speeder violation, and we are talking about someone who could barely pay the first fine.

“So now she has to decide, does she pay the $200 to the state or does she feed her children that week? Obviously, she’s going to have to choose the rent and food over the super speeder law. Next thing you know, her insurance is canceled. It’s a domino effect, and I don’t see the need for it.”

Stephens’ assessment of how the law works is correct. After a conviction is processed through the appropriate court, word is sent to the Georgia Department of Driver Services. The offender is then notified she has to pay $200—the super speeder fine, in addition to her original fine—within 90 days, or her license is suspended. If the license is suspended, the offender must fork over $250 to get it back.    

Take your thumbs off the keypad and put your hands on the wheel -- it's now illegal to text-message while driving.

A state law that takes effect Friday also bans checking e-mail, updating Facebook and Web surfing while driving, though using your phone's GPS is still OK.

"We want everyone to keep their attention on the roadway," said Capt. Scott Compton, an Illinois State Police spokesman. "Texting and cell phone use is a distraction that not only takes your eyes off the road, but often takes more than one hand to do."

The texting ban is one of nearly 300 new laws taking effect with the new year, ranging from ethics reforms in the wake of ex- Gov. Rod Blagojevich's ouster to how credit card companies can market on college campuses.

But the new rule likely to affect people's daily lives the most is the law prohibiting drivers from sending or reading electronic messages on hand-held devices. Drivers can text only to report an emergency or if they put the vehicle in park or neutral while stopped in traffic or on the shoulder.

"It's a very good thing," said Myra Wyatt, 42, of Lincoln Park. "Just yesterday I was texting in rush-hour traffic, and this new law will definitely make me think twice."

The new law will have to be enforced, but it's a primary offense. That means police will be able to pull over drivers for it, similar to the power they have if motorists fail to wear a seat belt.

While most motorists interviewed by the Tribune on Thursday applauded the law, many were skeptical that it could be enforced.