A side effect of those decisions has been confusion over how much discretion trial judges have to vary sentences beyond the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, adopted in the 1980s to bring uniformity to prison time and counteract race, wealth and other biases. Judges found that the guidelines sometimes prevented them from dealing fairly with individual circumstances.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the guidelines should be considered advisory, not mandatory. Now the question is how appeals courts should determine whether a sentence outside the guidelines was "reasonable."

Brian Gall was convicted in Iowa of conspiracy to sell the drug Ecstasy. He was given probation rather than the guidelines' range of 30-37 months behind bars. The judge noted that Gall walked away from the conspiracy at age 21, finished college and started a business. He turned himself in when he was later indicted.

Derrick Kimbrough was convicted in Virginia of selling crack and powder cocaine and sentenced to 15 years in prison rather than 19-22 years under the guidelines. The judge cited Kimbrough's military service, along with the controversy over the disparity in punishments for crack and powder cocaine crimes.

Sentences for dealing crack cocaine are far harsher than those for powder: 1 gram of crack cocaine triggers the same sentence as 100 grams of powder. The Sentencing Commission, which recommended that Congress narrow the 100:1 ratio, says the stiff crack sentence falls disproportionately on black offenders and low-level dealers.

In the Gall and Kimbrough disputes, appeals courts said the judges lacked the latitude to give the lower sentences. The defendants appealed.

Justice Samuel Alito, who spent 15 years as an appellate judge before being appointed to the high court, was an active questioner Tuesday. He challenged Gall's lawyer, Jeffrey Green, on the notion that a judge could show leniency based on a defendant's youth, calling that "a policy question."

To Kimbrough's lawyer, Michael Nachmanoff, Alito suggested judicial latitude on cocaine sentences could pose a dilemma for appellate judges. "What if (an appeals court) sees a number of absolutely identical cases?" he asked. If one sentencing judge used a 1:1 ratio, the next one used 20:1 and the next 50:1, "what is it to do under 'reasonableness' review?" Nachmanoff said that if the judges in those cases had sufficient reasons, the sentences should be upheld.

Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben, seeking to win longer sentences for the two men, urged an approach used by many appeals courts. It demands that a sentence varying significantly from the guidelines be justified by a rationale that is equally weighty.

Justice John Paul Stevens wondered if that test was too vague: "How do you measure the strength of the justifications?" Dreeben noted that the differing cocaine penalties stemmed from Congress' view in its 1986 law that crack-dealing spawned more violence. "For a judge to say Congress is crazy," Dreeben said, "is a sort of textbook example of an unreasonable sentencing factor."

Legal experts are watching this term to see the future direction of the highest U.S. court that has been closely divided, with a 5-4 conservative majority bolstered by President George W. Bush's two appointees -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

The court will rule on whether the hundreds of detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba can use American courts to challenge their indefinite confinement and on the current lethal injection method of execution.

The term that ended in June was marked by a sharp shift to the right on divisive social issues like abortion and civil rights law. Legal experts are divided on whether the trend will continue this term, an issue already being discussed in the November 2008 presidential race.

ROMNEY WOULD NAME STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS

In Boston, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said cases this term could dramatically affect the "lives of all Americans" and he vowed to name justices "in the strict constructionist mold" of Roberts, Alito and their fellow conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Though smaller firms may have a party leaning and plaintiffs' firms usually back Democrats, large firms typically are happy to have their partners meddle in mainstream politics and run for office, no matter the party.

"It's totally encouraged," said Pat Mizell, a former state district judge and Republican activist who is a partner at Vinson & Elkins. "We've been at it a long time here, we've had John Connally, Howard Baker in D.C. and Congressman Mike Andrews." Connally was Texas governor, Baker a U.S. senator from Tennessee and Andrews is from Houston.

That's not even to mention political power broker and former partner Joe B. Allen, 2006 Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barbara Radnofsky, and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Part of the synergy is the logical link between lawyers and lawmaking. But it has as much to do with the connections made in politics boosting the bottom line for law firms.

"It's better to know a lot of people as a lawyer. The more contacts you have, the better you can serve your clients," Mizell said.

Individual idealism can be involved, as well. Those ideals may vary within a large firm.

At Bracewell & Giuliani, managing partner Pat Oxford is heavily involved in the Giuliani presidential campaign and has been a Bush family crony for years. But partner Carrin Patman ran for Congress as a Democrat while at the firm a few years back.

Patman said political activity is a part of "the fabric of the firm." Founder Searcy Bracewell was a state legislator himself, she noted. "The firm likes to be represented on both sides," said Patman, who is raising funds for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Chris Bell, a former city councilman, mayoral candidate, congressman and last year's Democratic nominee for Texas governor, now works for Patton Boggs, a Washington, D.C.-based law firm known for lobbying — a profession that requires political activity and savvy.

"Not all professions lend themselves to public service from a scheduling standpoint like the law does," Bell said. He was at Houston firm Beirne, Maynard & Parsons while on the City Council and while running for mayor and Congress. The same firm is now home to former Republican state Rep. Joe Nixon.

A cursory view last week of 2007 federal elections filings for folks who listed their Houston law firms showed a wide variety of contributions within big firms.

As you'd expect, at Bracewell & Giuliani there were a lot of contributions for the name partner. But a few lawyers also gave to the campaigns of Democrats Clinton, Sen. Barak Obama, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, and on the GOP side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Fulbright & Jaworski's two biggest presidential contribution beneficiaries as of last week were Obama and Giuliani. At Vinson & Elkins it was Clinton, Giuliani and Obama. And at Baker Botts, the favorites were Romney, Obama and Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Frank Harmon, a small-firm lawyer and local Republican activist, said one of the places law firms and politics interact the most is in judicial races.

"Right now, every day I receive at least one, and as many as three, invitations to a judicial fundraiser. Nobody could write a check to all these guys," said Harmon.

A series of videos created by Boston law firm Choate Hall & Stewart echoes the "Mac vs. PC" ads created by Apple. The video series, called "Choate vs. Megafirm," features a frustrated Megafirm employee complaining about his firm, while a self-assured Choate employee sings her employer's praises.

However, sometimes law firms recognize when their attempts to be hip go too far. Los Angeles firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges pulled a video from their Web site before it even went live. The video, titled "A Day in the Life of an Associate," followed a jeans-wearing associate named Ivey who plays Ultimate Frisbee in between meetings with partners.

"Some of the associates, some of the partners, thought it was too contrived; maybe corny was probably a better word," said A. William Urquhart, the firm’s hiring partner.

"They violated the integrity of the game," Mayer's attorney, Bruce Afran, told The Associated Press. "This is a way of punishing Belichick and the Patriots."

Mayer is seeking more than $184 million in damages for Jets ticket holders.

Belichick was fined $500,000 by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, and the team was fined $250,000 for violating a league rule that prohibits clubs from using a video camera on the sidelines for any purpose -- including recording signals relayed to opposing players on the field. New England also must forfeit a first-round draft pick next year if it makes the playoffs or a second- and third-rounder if it doesn't.

"They were deceiving customers," said the 48-year-old Mayer. "You can't deceive customers."

The lawsuit maintained that because other teams found illegal videotaping by the defendants, Jets ticket holders should be compensated for all games played in Giants Stadium between the Jets and Patriots since Belichick became head coach in 2000.

The two calculated that because customers paid $61.6 million to watch eight "fraudulent" games, they're entitled to triple that amount -- or $184.8 million -- in compensation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

"How many times have the Patriots done this? We find it hard to believe they did it just once," Mayer said. "We just want to get to the truth of the matter of what the Patriots did to the Jets. I think the ticket holders are genuinely concerned about it. This is a type of misrepresentation."

Patriots spokesman Stacey James declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Mayer and Afran, who consider themselves public interest lawyers, have been thorns in the side of New Jersey politicians for years, filing lawsuits and demanding investigations to advance their grievances. They are well known in the state but generally have had little success in their causes.

Both have lost bids for elected offices, and Mayer once served as a presidential campaign adviser to Ralph Nader.

Their demand in March for a probe of Gov. Jon S. Corzine's gifts to a former girlfriend was rejected by a federal prosecutor. In 2006, a judge vetoed their effort to block Corzine's appointment of Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., to fill the governor's seat in the U.S. Senate.

They also failed to get a court to order a special election to replace Gov. James E. McGreevey when he resigned in 2004.

Now, they're taking on the Patriots.

Their latest lawsuit asserted that the secret videotaping violated the contractual "expectations and rights" of Jets ticket holders "to observe an honest match played in compliance with all laws and regulations."

The actions of Belichick and the Patriots violated federal and state racketeering laws, as well as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and New Jersey Deceptive Business Practices Act, according to the lawsuit.

"Having been a lifelong Jets fan, as soon as I heard this, I was completely outraged," Mayer said. "The NFL just slapped them on the wrist. I'm a consumer lawyer, and this is consumer fraud."

Fabian was indicted by a federal grand jury last month on charges of a $32 million computer equipment leasing scheme. The grand jury alleges Fabian used the money to buy beach property, travel on jets and set up the nonprofit Centre for Management.

The center bills itself as a resource that helps other nonprofits operate more efficiently and use technology better. The center is not a defendant in Fabian's criminal case, but it is required to provide monthly financial reports to the federal court and not to make any financial transactions outside the ordinary course of business.