Rothstein suffered severe internal injuries when he skied into the wall at Snowbird in February 2003. Rothstein sued, claiming negligence, but a state District Court ruled in favor of Snowbird, citing the releases Rothstein signed.

The Supreme Court's 3-2 decision Tuesday restores Rothstein's lawsuit and clarifies state law.

"What it will do is to encourage ski resorts to be more careful in their operations," said Jesse Trentadue, a lawyer representing Rothstein.

Snowbird attorneys Gordon Strachan and Kevin Simon did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Peter Rietz, a Colorado lawyer who is special counsel to the National Ski Areas Association, said the ruling applies only to Utah resorts.

Snowbird maintained Rothstein skied off a connecting trail to an area that was marked off by rope. But the rope had a gap, which Rothstein mistook for an entrance to an open trail. The wall Rothstein hit had a light covering of snow and couldn't be seen. Rothstein survived broken ribs, a kidney injury, liver damage and a collapsed lung.

Snowbird won the earlier ruling on two releases Rothstein had signed, assuming all risks and specifically mentioning cases "including the negligence of Snowbird, its employees and agents."

But the Supreme Court decided that the releases go against a state law, which was written to protect resorts by keeping liability insurance rates affordable.

Resorts are covered by the state's Inherent Risks of Skiing Act, saying skiers assume some risks every time they swoosh down a steep mountainside or trail lined with trees.

The law is designed to keep insurance rates affordable for the resorts, not shield them from liability all together. Resorts are responsible to insure themselves non-inherent risks, the high court said.

The releases Rothstein signed for Snowbird "are contrary to the public policy of this state and are, therefore, unenforceable," the ruling said.

Associate Chief Justice Michael Wilkins, who cast one of the two dissenting votes, noted that nothing in the state law says ski resorts can't shield themselves from lawsuits for non-inherent risks.

"In fact, the text is silent about whether an individual may or may not sue a ski area operator on some other basis," Wilkins wrote.

Speaking from Dillon, Colo., Rietz said there are trade-offs when a skier gets a season pass.

"Part of the consideration when you get a discounted pass is you have to sign a waiver that provides some additional protection for the resort," he said. "If you don't want to release liability you can buy a day ticket."

Santo Maggio, 56, who was president of the Refco Capital Markets unit, pleaded guilty to four counts -- two counts of securities fraud, one count of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud -- at a hearing before Magistrate Judge Ronald Ellis in Manhattan federal court.

Separately, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said in a related action it had settled a civil lawsuit against Maggio.

Refco and 23 affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on October 17, 2005, a week after revealing that former Chief Executive Phillip Bennett had hidden $430 million of bad customer debt. It later liquidated its operations.

Maggio told the judge that Refco's losses were covered up.

"I participated with others to hide the true financial health of Refco," he said. "I deeply regret my conduct and the harm that it has caused."

He faces a maximum sentence of 65 years for the charges. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 9.

The plea comes a day after prosecutors, along with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed charges against Joseph Collins, a former outside lawyer for Refco. 

Berman was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

Avvo Chief Executive Mark Britton declared victory, saying he had been confident that the court would reach that decision.

"This was a case that should have never been filed. It was aimed at chilling and censoring our opinions, the opinions of consumers and even the opinions of other lawyers," said Britton, the former general counsel at Expedia who founded Avvo last year. "We are gratified. We are very happy."

There is the possibility of an appeal.

The suit, which was brought by Berman on behalf of Seattle attorneys John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokur shortly after Avvo's launch last June, claimed that the attorney rating service was severely flawed since some accomplished lawyers scored lower than those with disciplinary actions.

For example, the suit noted that Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito received the same rating as an attorney in prison for conspiracy and other charges.

The suit also said that attorneys could manipulate the rankings by updating their profiles on Avvo, citing one example of a Bellevue attorney who boosted his Avvo rating by posting athletic awards on his profile page.

But Lasnik wrote Tuesday that the Avvo ratings -- which assign rankings of 1 to 10 on attorneys -- are "subjective opinions."

"To the extent that their lawsuit has focused a spotlight on how ludicrous the rating of attorneys (and judges) has become, more power to them. To the extent that they seek to prevent the dissemination of opinions regarding attorneys and judges, however, the First Amendment precludes their cause of action," Lasnik wrote.

Lasnik also questioned why Browne would use his rating as a "Super Lawyer" by Washington Law & Politics magazine as evidence against his sub-par Avvo rating, noting that the court did not want to determine if one system was better than the other.

Avvo, which has raised about $13 million from Benchmark Capital and Ignition Partners, has attracted more than 4,000 lawyers who have claimed profiles on the site. About 2,000 of those are from Washington state.

Despite the legal action, Britton said that he spent little time on the case and most of the employees stayed focused on the job at hand.

"I think the team took it for what it was worth, rather than getting worked up by it or getting distracted by it," he said.

William Rothstein suffered severe internal injuries when he skied into a wall at Snowbird in February 2003. He sued and claimed the resort was negligent.

A lower court had said Snowbird Corp. was protected from a lawsuit because of two waivers signed by Rothstein when he obtained a season pass at the popular resort near Salt Lake City.

The high court overturned that ruling and said the releases go against a state law that is designed to keep insurance rates affordable for resorts but not shield them from all liability.

The releases signed by Rothstein "are contrary to the public policy of this state and are, therefore, unenforceable," the 3-2 decision said.

Snowbird spokeswoman Laura Schaffer said the resort doesn't comment on pending litigation.

In court papers, the resort maintained Rothstein skied off a connecting trail to an area that was marked off by rope. But the rope had a gap, which Rothstein mistook for an entrance to an open trail. He hit a wall made of railroad ties that was obscured by a light covering of snow.

Snowbird won the earlier ruling on two releases Rothstein had signed, assuming all risks and specifically mentioning cases "including the negligence of Snowbird, its employees and agents."

The Supreme Court's ruling Tuesday restores Rothstein's lawsuit and clarifies state law.

"What it will do is to encourage ski resorts to be more careful in their operations," said Jesse Trentadue, an attorney for Rothstein.

In the brief submitted to the high court late Monday, attorneys from the University of Texas School of Law argued that the 30-year sentence violates Christopher Pittman's Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

Such a lengthy sentence is "unconstitutionally disproportionate as applied to a 12-year-old child," according a copy of the petition provided by Juvenile Justice Foundation. It said Pittman "is the nation's only inmate serving such a harsh sentence for an offense committed at such a young age."

Zoloft is the most widely prescribed antidepressant in the United States, with 32.7 million prescriptions written in 2003. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration ordered Zoloft and other antidepressants to carry "black box" warnings - the government's strongest warning short of a ban - about an increased risk of suicidal behavior in children.

Patterson could face as many as 25 years in prison when he is sentenced in April, prosecutors said.

Two other men — Kevin James, 31, and Levar Haley Washington, 28 — pleaded guilty in the case last week. A fourth, Hammad Riaz Samana, has been declared mentally unfit to stand trial and is undergoing psychiatric care at a federal prison.

All except Samana, a citizen of Pakistan, are American-born Muslim converts. The men were indicted in 2005 for what authorities said was a plot to attack American military facilities, Israeli government offices and synagogues in the Los Angeles area.

Prosecutors said the plot was orchestrated by Washington, Patterson and Samana at the behest of James, an inmate at California State Prison in Sacramento and founder of the radical Muslim group Jamiyyat Ul-Islam Is-Saheeh.

Patterson has cooperated with authorities, according his attorney, Winston Kevin McKesson.

"He volunteered to work for the government after finding out James lied," McKesson said. "James misled them in what the Quran says."

The plotters were within weeks of being able to carry out an attack before they were discovered about two months before the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, officials said. Police uncovered the plot in July 2005 while investigating a string of gas station robberies that authorities say were committed to finance the attacks.