The Justice Department, easing a Bush administration policy, said Wednesday it has decided to give an independent body authority to monitor the government's controversial domestic spying program.

In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and that it already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group.

The court orders approving collection of international communications _ whether it originates in the United States or abroad _ was issued Jan. 10, according to the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," the attorney general wrote.

The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.

The White House said it is satisfied that the new guidelines meet its concerns about national security.

"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has put together its guidelines and its rules and those have met administration concerns about speed and agility when it comes to responding to bits of intelligence where we may to be able to save American lives," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

Snow said he could not explain why those concerns could not have been addressed before the program was started. He said the president will not reauthorize the present program because the new rules will serve as guideposts.

A Tampa law firm that has garnered millions of dollars in neglect and abuse settlements and lawsuits against nursing homes in Florida and around the country is now on the defense end of a suit that contends the firm knowingly violated Tennessee law regarding contingency fees.

The lawsuit against the firm, Wilkes & McHugh, was filed in December in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Tennessee.

Plaintiff Debbie Howard hired the firm several years ago to sue a Memphis nursing home in the death of her grandmother for medical negligence, according to the 38-page complaint.

The class-action claim states Wilkes & McHugh engaged in an unlawful scheme to collect 40 percent or 45 percent in contingency fees of settlement amounts, although Tennessee law caps fees to 33 and 1/3 percent in medical malpractice cases. The complaint says the law firm charged the higher and unlawful contingency fee to hundreds of clients in Tennessee.

“Although it has never actually tried any of these nursing home lawsuits in Tennessee, defendant Wilkes & McHugh has reaped tens of millions of dollars in legal fees from settlements ... paid by nursing home defendants to their Tennessee clients during the Class period,” according to the complaint.

SALT LAKE CITY-ZEVEX International, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZVXI) has executed a definitive Merger Agreement with Moog Inc. (NYSE: MOG.A and MOG.B). Upon the closing of the merger, ZEVEX will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Moog. The merger is expected to close in March, 2007.

Upon the closing of the merger, each share of ZEVEX common stock that is issued and outstanding immediately prior to the closing, and each outstanding restricted stock unit that is convertible into shares of ZEVEX common stock, will be converted into the right to receive from Moog $13.00 in cash. Each outstanding option for shares of common stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive $13.00 per share for each share of common stock that is purchasable pursuant such option, less the per share exercise price of each such share. The maximum aggregate purchase price in the merger is $83.8 million. Moog intends to pay this purchase price from an existing line of credit.

The per share price of $13.00 represents a premium of approximately 36 percent above the average trading price of ZEVEX common stock during the past 30-day period. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. was engaged to act as financial advisor to ZEVEX's Board of Directors and delivered an opinion to the Board that, as of the date of the opinion, the consideration to be received by the shareholders pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement is fair, from a financial point of view, to the shareholders of ZEVEX. The law firm of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook and McDonough acted as legal advisors to ZEVEX.

The merger is subject to certain conditions, including regulatory approval and approval by ZEVEX stockholders. ZEVEX will solicit approval of the merger from its stockholders by means of a proxy statement, which will be mailed to ZEVEX stockholders upon completion of the required filing and review process by the Securities and Exchange Commission. That proxy statement and other relevant documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission will contain information about ZEVEX, Moog, and the proposed merger. STOCKHOLDERS ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS CAREFULLY WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT STOCKHOLDERS SHOULD CONSIDER BEFORE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THE MERGER. In addition to receiving the proxy statement by mail, stockholders will also be able to obtain the proxy statement, as well as other filings (including annual, quarterly and current reports) containing information about ZEVEX, without charge, at the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website (http://www.sec.gov). Stockholders may also obtain copies of these documents without charge by requesting them from ZEVEX in writing at 4314 ZEVEX Park Lane, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84123, or by phone at (801) 264-1001, extension 203.

Following the merger, ZEVEX will become a part of Moog’s Medical Devices Segment. ZEVEX will continue normal operations through its two primary divisions, Applied Technology and Therapeutics, located in Salt Lake City. ZEVEX President and Chief Executive Officer, David J. McNally, said, “We are delighted to announce our acquisition by Moog. We are pleased that our operations will remain in Salt Lake City, where 178 employees continue to serve the customer base that we have developed over the past 20 years. For our customers, we will expand our offering of fluid delivery technologies, based upon Moog’s electronic and disposable infusion products, as well as on Moog’s proven fluid management expertise in demanding industrial, commercial aircraft, and aerospace applications.”

Martin Berardi, Vice President and head of the Medical Devices Segment of Moog, said, “This acquisition is a perfect fit, based upon the excellent product offering and quality reputation of ZEVEX. We believe that ZEVEX’s personnel, technology portfolio, and existing customer base provide a platform on which we can generate new growth in fluid delivery applications, including enteral feeding, and from which we can expand our product lines of medical sensors and surgical tools.”

Libby faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice when his trial begins January 16. One of Libby's defense lawyers said last month that his client plans to call his former boss, Vice President Dick Cheney, to testify.

Retired judge Stan Billingsley pores through news accounts daily to find the law behind the story. He's part of a new and growing medium that hopes to fill a gap in news coverage and encourage discussion of the law: legal blogs.

Last week, after studying case law and interviewing the lawyer for the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, Billingsley concluded on news.lawreader.com that the commission has no legal basis to continue legal proceedings against Dan Druen in light of Gov. Ernie Fletcher's pardon of him in the merit hiring investigation.

He's previously defended Chief Justice Joseph Lambert for writing a controversial footnote to a Supreme Court opinion and blasted a Western Kentucky judge for jailing illegal immigrants.

"We look at the law behind the issues," Billingsley said. "We are certainly not partisan in respect to political philosophy, but we do have the driving concept of, 'If you're going to state the law, state it correctly.'"

At least six Kentucky law blogs, or blawgs, have emerged in the last two years, regularly posting digests of court decisions, analyses of statutes and dissections of legal theories. Others are popping up around the country and internationally.

They provide online the kind of in-depth, regular legal analysis usually available only in limited-access media.

Blawggers say they also are motivated by loftier ambitions of improving their profession. Three Kentucky blawggers who were recently interviewed say that what they do is an extension of what civic-minded lawyers have always done: encourage a scholarly discussion of the law.

But now that debate occurs daily rather than in periodicals and journals.

Blawggers have attempted to distinguish themselves from their partisan political counterparts. Louisville personal-injury lawyer Michael Stevens, who publishes kentuckylawblog.com, recently wrote that he doesn't want to be called a blogger anymore because of the baggage associated with it.

Blogs, short for Web logs, are online diaries or journals that allow readers to respond to and comment on the writer's posts.

Blawgs mostly are geared toward lawyers and not a general audience -- unless, say, you have a strange fascination with the intricacies of divorce law. For that, go to Divorce Law Journal at http:// louisvilledivorce.typepad.com.

Billingsley started his free blog to drive traffic to his commercial Web site, lawreader.com, an online law library. It has a search engine for Kentucky's laws and rules of evidence, synopses of appeals court cases and examples of jury instructions, pleadings and other documents commonly filed by attorneys.

"We get the same comment time after time: 'Now I can compete with the big firms,'" Billingsley said. "A single practitioner cannot afford to maintain a big law library."

The Web site saves lawyers time, not to mention inconvenient trips to Frankfort, he said.

The local blawgs are generally light on political commentary, though they do analyze and digest court decisions. They've also defended judges who they say have been criticized unfairly.

"We are doing this for the love of the profession," said Diana Skaggs, who publishes Divorce Law Journal. "We are all aware of the undermining of the public confidence in the judiciary. We see the need for public confidence in our judiciary, and we have an excellent judiciary."

Billingsley defended Lambert last summer for tucking into an unrelated ruling a footnote that said the governor enjoys absolute immunity and may face prosecution only if impeached first. Billingsley disagreed with the footnote but said it's common for judges to comment on legal matters that are not directly related to the case at hand.

The blawggers frequently analyze the law behind major news stories. Billingsley, for example, posted Kentucky cases involving the Bible in the courtroom after a Mississippi jury consulted a Bible while deliberating whether to give the death penalty to a woman who murdered her husband.

Stevens links to court stories across the state -- appeals, court decisions and other law related news such as forums and local bar events. He says his site fills a void left by state bar publications that publish only monthly or quarterly.

"I enjoy thinking about the law, writing about the law and sharing this information with other lawyers," he said.

Blawgs have generated some controversy among those concerned that they constitute lawyer advertising, which is regulated by state bar associations. Lawyers are required to submit advertisements to the Kentucky Bar Association for review and pay a $50 fee, leading to initial fears that blawggers would have to pay $50 per post.

The bar's advertising commission has ruled that is not necessary, but it does require lawyer bloggers to register their "about" pages, which typically contain biographies and links to law firm Web sites.

Robert L. Elliott, a Lexington lawyer who is on the advertising commission, said law blogs "are kind of a new game in town." He said the bar has not yet developed hard rules for how to handle them.

Law blogs are not necessarily lawyer advertising, depending on their content, he said. But Elliott said some blawgs do appear to be nothing more than advertisements, though he declined to point to specific sites.

Lexington lawyer Benjamin Cowgill, who publishes Legal Ethics Newsletter at legalethics.info, said law blogs have no more ethical issues than lawyer Web sites. Cowgill's site triggered the bar association's review of its advertising regulations.

Cowgill says if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he'd be a blawgger.

"He would be thrilled to live at a time when it is possible to share information with interested people throughout the world, simply by sitting down at his desk and writing at a keyboard," Cowgill wrote in an e-mail.