The second quarter of this year saw the pace of law firm mergers rise sharply in the U.S., according to a new report from legal consultancy Altman Weil Inc.

There were 26 new law firm mergers and acquisitions reported in April, May and June, compared to 18 during the first quarter of the year, according to Newtown Square, Pa.-based Altman Weil.

The largest of the latest law firm combinations was between K&L Gates, a 1,500-attorney firm, and Kennedy Convington Lobdell & Hickman, a 175-lawyer firm.

In Memphis there were no significant mergers reported for the quarter. However, in the previous quarter St. Louis-based Husch & Eppenberger LLC and Kansas City, Mo.,-based Blackwell Sanders LLP finalized their merger, which was first announced last September. Of the two, only Husch & Eppenberger had an office in Memphis.

In July 2007, Memphis-based Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz PC merged Atlanta-based Gambrell & Stolz LLP into the firm, adding 36 attorneys.

"Even in a deteriorating economy, law firms continue to pursue a growth strategy via merger and acquisition," said Altman Weil principal Tom Clay in a statement. "And based on our conversations with law firm leaders, we think the pace is unlikely to slow."

A class-action lawsuit filed June 26 in U.S. District Court in Miami accuses an Orlando law firm founded by a member of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority of racketeering by sending threatening letters that demand money from alleged shoplifters.

According to the complaint, letters from Palmer Reifler & Associates PA say the recipients must pay large fines under state laws or face possible legal action or a "visit from a sheriff."

James Palmer, the senior partner and founder of the firm, was named to the airport board May 23 to a four-year term succeeding Robert Theisen.

The complaint alleges the law firm:

- Sent millions of threatening form letters intended to "harass, intimidate and coerce" people into paying large fines. The suit charges the firm with abusing laws passed in all 50 states as a way for retailers to recover massive losses from retail theft. Under the laws, retailers can seek civil damages and penalties from thieves.
However, a nationally published report contends retailers are supplying the names of those only suspected of shoplifting, even when there is no conviction or solid evidence to indicate guilt.

- Received tens of millions of dollars during the past 20 years at consumers' expense, plus a percentage from the retailers, ranging from 18 percent to 30 percent of the income generated from the letters.
The plaintiffs want to recover their money and stop the alleged harassment by mail and phone, via a jury trial expected later this summer.

It's not the first time Palmer Reifler & Associates have been sued over these types of letters, says Alison Harke, with Harke & Clasby LLP of Miami, one of two firms representing the plaintiffs. However, in previous attempts, the suit either was settled or dismissed. The current approach is to file the lawsuit in federal court under anti-racketeering laws.

Harke says the retailers -- 50 large clients that include Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and J.C. Penney -- may be sued later. Wal-Mart referred requests for comment to its legal department, but no response was received by press time. A spokeswoman at J.C. Penney says her company doesn't comment on pending litigation.

"This is a frivolous lawsuit," says Natt Reifler, a partner and attorney who oversees the recovery law activities of the Palmer firm. It seems to challenge the statutes themselves and the right to send "demand" letters, he says, adding that the process a way to resolve differences without resorting to the courts.

The recovery effort is a legitimate procedure under the law, which doesn't allow for the collection of debt, but for damages and civil penalties, says the lawyer.

Thanks to his firm's actions, retailers have recovered a substantial amount of money over the years, Reifler says. He declines to say how much, but adds that the actions "helps keep prices down," which is a boon for consumers.

"This is an economically viable way for retailers to recover their losses," agrees Daniel C. Johnson, a lawyer specializing in commercial law with the Carlton Fields law firm Orlando office, who is not involved in the case.

"I have not heard of anything I would call an abuse" of the particular laws, adds John Rogers, senior vice president and general counsel for the Florida Retail Federation. He notes that he lobbied on behalf of passage of the recovery laws in Florida.

The law benefits retailers not only by recouping money, but also by reducing the time employees must devote to pursuing cases against shoplifters and in monitoring stores, says Rogers.

"The people who say this haven't apparently been listening to me," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said in response to a question at a town-hall style event.

Obama blamed criticism from "my friends on the left" and "some of the media" in part on cynicism that ascribes political motives for every move candidates make. "You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."

The Illinois senator was responding to a question from a self-described "reformed Republican" who said he worked for Democrat Bobby Kennedy four decades ago and thanked Obama for restoring "that faith."

"You had an interesting week of being accused of flip-flopping, which is mostly nonsense," the man said. He then asked Obama to restate his Iraq position, and Obama used the opportunity to dispel the idea he had generally changed his stances.

Since wrapping up the Democratic nomination last month, Obama has voiced positions that break with the Democratic Party's left and seem to shade his own past positions on a range of subjects. He's drawn criticism from some liberal Democrats who question his loyalty and from Republicans who accuse him of flip-flopping.

His remarks aside, Obama is clearly competing for the center of the electorate. Originally best known as an anti-Iraq war candidate, his general election commercials appear nonpartisan and make an obvious play for voters across the political spectrum by focusing on family values and patriotism as well as "welfare to work" and lower taxes.

Over the past few weeks, he angered liberals by supporting compromise electronic surveillance rules for the government's wiretapping program even though the bill provided immunity that he opposed last year for telecommunications companies that conducted warrantless eavesdropping. When the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, he said he favors both an individual's right to bear firearms and a government's right to regulate them.

And, he broke with death penalty opponents when he disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision outlawing executions of people who rape children.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday put off deciding on the wireless industry's challenge to the regulations until the Federal Communications Commission gets preliminary clearance for the rules.

After a panel of experts appointed by the FCC pointed out that many cell towers along the Gulf Coast stopped working when they lost power during Hurricane Katrina, the agency proposed in May 2007 that all cell towers have a minimum of eight hours of backup power that would switch on in the event a tower lost its regular energy source.

The loss of power contributed to communication breakdowns that complicated rescue and recovery efforts during the 2005 disaster.

Wireless companies have said the regulations were illegally drafted and would present a huge economic and bureaucratic burden. In particular, they said, the thousands of generators or battery packs required would be expensive and local zoning rules or structural limitations could make installation impossible in some places.

The FCC agreed in October to exempt cell sites that a wireless carrier proved couldn't meet the rules. The FCC would give companies six months to report on the feasibility of installing backup power and another six months either to bring sites into compliance or explain how they would provide backup service through other means, such as portable cellular transmitters.

CTIA-The Wireless Association, Sprint Nextel Corp. and others asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., this year to intervene, saying the exemptions would still leave wireless companies scrambling to inspect and compile reports on thousands of towers.

The appeals court put the rules on hold while it heard each sides' arguments in May.

Five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are to appear Wednesday and Thursday for pretrial hearings in the Bush administration's special tribunal for terrorism suspects. Their trials have not yet been scheduled.

The suspects could get the death penalty if convicted of charges that include murder.

A judge is expected to hold hearings to explore defense allegations that Mohammed intimidated his co-defendants into refusing military lawyers.

Meanwhile, a judge in Washington is considering a challenge that could disrupt the first scheduled war crimes trial, on July 21, of Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden.

Hamdan's lawyers say a recent Supreme Court decision has raised new legal issues that require U.S. District Judge James Robertson to delay the trial. The government says it wants to move forward.

Robertson has scheduled a July 17 hearing in Washington on the issue, just four days before Hamdan is to go on trial in a specially built courtroom on a former airstrip at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

A ruling in favor of the prisoner could also delay the trials for other men held at Guantanamo, and perhaps force the military to devise a whole new way to prosecute alleged terrorists.

The vote, planned for Wednesday, would end almost a year of wrangling between the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, and Congress and the White House over the president's warrantless wiretapping program that was initiated after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A major issue was the Bush administration's insistence that the bill shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without court permission after 9/11.

The White House had threatened to veto the bill unless it immunized companies like AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. from wiretapping lawsuits. About 40 such lawsuits have been filed. They are all pending before a single federal court.