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.

"I'd like to sell anything I have," said Metta. But he won't just yet — not until the city draws up new regulations.

The Supreme Court's decision June 26 rebuffed the strictest gun law in the nation.

The National Rifle Association called it "a great moment in American history." But prospective gun buyers and sellers said they remain on hold, awaiting the response of D.C. officials who are scrambling to draft new handgun regulations that comply with the court ruling.

"There's nothing we can do until we know what they will do," Metta said.

Metta, manager of Atlantic Guns in Silver Spring, Md., said his store fielded about 75 calls from D.C. residents after the ruling. Other gun shops outside the city — which has no shops of its own — also received calls. They, too, were turning prospective buyers away.

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

Washington's gun ban took effect in 1976 and essentially outlawed private ownership of handguns in a city struggling with violence.

"We have reviewed the court's opinion and determined that an appeal would not be warranted," Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's spokesman Alex Detrick said. "Thus, for all intents and purposes, the Grasso case is over."

Cuomo's announcement came soon after the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled the attorney general's authority to pursue two remaining claims against Grasso lapsed when the New York Stock Exchange changed in 2005 from a nonprofit to a for-profit corporation. Last week, the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, dismissed four common law claims against the 2003 compensation package.

The midlevel court concluded Tuesday that seeking to recover money for two remaining claims under New York's Not-For-Profit Corporation Law would simply benefit the NYSE's private owners. The court also dismissed a claim against Home Depot founder Kenneth Langone, who was chairman of the exchange's compensation committee and was accused of misleading other NYSE board members about Grasso's pay.

Justice James McGuire wrote that based on case law and the "evident purpose" of the not-for-profit law, the attorney general's authority to pursue the claims "lapsed" when the NYSE became a for-profit corporation. He wrote for the court majority.

Nossaman Guthner Knox & Elliott LLP plans to merge with O'Connor & Hannan LLP.

O'Connor & Hannan LLP, a D.C.-based firm with 23 attorneys and lobbyists at 1666 K St. NW, will rename as Nossaman LLP/O'Connor & Hannan and have more than 150 attorneys and lobbyists in eight offices. The merger takes effect Tuesday.

Los Angeles-based Nossaman will add D.C. to its list of locations, which includes Arlington County and offices in Austin, Texas, and a handful of cities in California.

Recently brought together through several joint new business proposals, the two firms found similarities in environmental law, government relations and infrastructure.

"The attorneys joining Nossaman add another dimension to our core practice areas and to the services we can offer our clients at the federal level," said Michael Heumann, managing partner at Nossaman. "We are further differentiating ourselves from other mid-sized California law firms and offering our clients something new."

Next month, Nossaman's D.C. office will elect members to the firm's executive and compensation committees.

Timothy Jenkins, a legislative advocate with 51-year-old O'Connor & Hannan, will become chairman of Nossaman's national government relations practice group.

Two claims remain against Grasso's $187.5 million compensation package from the exchange, which was challenged by Spitzer as exorbitant for a not-for-profit organization.

In the decision affirming a lower court's ruling, Chief Judge Judith Kaye says the challenges were based on the size of the compensation package. But she says state law required more evidence to void such a payment.

Grasso argued that a private interest like NYSE should be free to set its own compensation.

The 5-4 decision addresses a basic legal point, that courts can only hear cases when plaintiffs suffer actual injuries that are traceable to a defendant's conduct.

In the case before the court, APCC Services Inc. is trying to collect from Sprint Communications Co. and AT&T Inc. for coinless long-distance calls over the networks of Sprint and AT&T.

APCC provides billing and collection services on behalf of pay-phone service providers.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said APCC may pursue the claim, even though it has promised to turn over any money from the lawsuit to pay-phone service providers.

A federal appeals court said the case could go forward because the pay-phone providers transferred the compensation claims to the collection agency and agreed to finance APCC's lawsuit. Breyer agreed, saying that for centuries, courts have found ways to allow those to whom compensation claims are assigned to bring suit.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said APCC has "nothing to gain from their lawsuit" and that under settled legal principles, that fact required dismissal of their complaint. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the dissent.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that pay-phone companies that complained they hadn't been adequately compensated could sue long-distance carriers.