Montreal consumer Olivier Dumoulin started a class-action lawsuit against Dell, arguing that the company wouldn't honour Axim sales made on its Canadian website, before the erroneous prices of $89 and $118 were rectified. The real prices were $379 and $549 respectively.

At issue for the Supreme Court is a caveat used by Dell and a growing number of retailers on the sale of everything from computers to cellphones.

It's a clause that obliges dissatisfied customers to challenge companies through arbitration - and not class-action lawsuits.

"This clause for us is abusive. Its goal is to block class-action lawsuits," said Charles Tanguay, a spokesperson for Quebec's Union des consommateurs, which is spearheading the case with Dumoulin. "What we're defending here is a principle. When a price is advertised, it must be sold at that price."

In 2004, the Quebec Superior Court granted the union and Dumoulin class-action certification.

Each member of the class is asking for Dell to supply the Axim at the transaction price, plus compensatory damages of $100 and punitive damages of $1,000, court papers show.

A lawyer for Dell couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Dell's appeal of the Superior Court's decision has broad implications for most Canadian provinces. While such arbitration clauses are no longer permitted in Quebec - their use is also forbidden in Ontario - Friday's decision would set the standard for retailers in other provinces, legal experts say.

"There's a big trend of retailers favouring arbitration clauses," said Frederic Bachand, a McGill University law professor.

Bachand was part of a team of lawyers representing a neutral intervenor in the Dell case.

While the trend is more limited in Canada, Bachand estimates that these clauses are used in more than half of U.S. consumer contracts - or purchases of goods and services.

Arbitration is advantageous for big business because it's done privately - sparing companies potentially negative publicity - and usually less costly, he said.

Some arbitration clauses also force customers to challenge a company as individuals, which could dissuade customers from taking action because of fees.

"What the big-business side is trying to do is to force the consumer to go to individual arbitration," he said. "We've seen some cases that are obviously abusive, where companies are trying to shift the cost (of arbitration) to the consumer."

Dell wasn't trying to gouge customers on fees, Bachand said.

Along with the Dell case, the Supreme Court is also expected to decide on a similar lawsuit involving Rogers Wireless.

A Quebec customer trying to launch a class-action lawsuit against Rogers for high mobile fees was also told he had to go to arbitration instead of court.

"Of course, this is the worst possible development," a law professor at New York University, Stephen Gillers, said. "It bodes ill for Partners A & B," the professor said, using the pseudonyms prosecutors have adopted to refer to Messrs. Weiss and Lerach in court proceedings. "Each of them is clearly in the prosecutors' sights," Mr. Gillers said. With Bershad's testimony, prosecutors "may now have the ability to pull the trigger" and obtain an indictment of the two men, Mr. Gillers said.

"It seems pretty damning to me," another professor who has been following the case, Larry Ribstein of the University of Illinois, said. "They are facing a trial or pretty hard time, if all this pans out."

Messrs. Weiss and Lerach have not been charged with any crime. However, in recent weeks, the pair has been in plea discussions with federal prosecutors, a lawyer involved in the case said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Weiss's attorney, Benjamin Brafman, declined to comment on the development. Mr. Lerach's lawyer, John Keker, did not respond to a message seeking comment for this article.

Bershad could receive up to five years in prison on the conspiracy count. Prosecutors and Bershad's lawyers agreed that sentencing guidelines call for 18 months to two years in his case, though Judge Walter is not obligated to follow that recommendation. Bershad also agreed to forfeit $7.75 million of his receipts from the various lawsuits and to pay a $250,000 fine.

At yesterday's hearing, Bershad and one of his lawyers, Cristina Arguedas, stood at a lectern as a prosecutor, Richard Robinson, outlined the facts the government would seek to prove if Bershad went to trial. For 15 minutes, the prosecutor described the scheme by which Milberg Weiss used secretly paid plaintiffs to win the race to be first to file securities lawsuits.

"Generally, these individuals were promised that they would be paid approximately 10% of the net attorneys' fees that Milberg Weiss obtained," Mr. Robinson said. This gave Milberg Weiss an advantage because plaintiffs' firms that filed first were likely to be named as lead counsel and to enjoy a larger share of attorneys fees when cases were settled, he said. In 1995, Congress changed the laws related to class actions, and first-to-file status became less critical.

In one of the case's most eye-catching allegations, Mr. Robinson said Bershad kept in his office a stash of cash contributed by Milberg Weiss partners. The prosecutor said this became a "secret payment fund" used to make off-the-books distributions to plaintiffs, who were expected to take less than the customary 10% if they were paid in cash.

Mr. Robinson said Partner A, Mr. Weiss, made at least one payment from the fund, and Partner B, Mr. Lerach, sought reimbursement for a cash payment to a plaintiff. The prosecutor said Partner A also used a "phony option," which court papers indicate related to an artwork, to pay $175,000 owed to one plaintiff involved in the scheme.

“We believe the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) reached erroneous conclusions that could have been corrected by seeking clarification from Orrick before LCB published its audit report,” said the letter from James Houpt.

But the letter went on to say that the law firm considers Nevada to be a valuable client, and the firm's “intent is not to risk that relationship.”

State Treasurer Kate Marshall said the check already has been deposited in a state bank account.

“They respectfully disagreed with the audit, but they also felt it was the right decision for them to make the overpayment identified in the audit,” Marshall told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The state of Nevada is a little over $95,000 better off for it.”

As a result of the audit of the college savings program while under the review of then-Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Marshall sent a letter to the firm seeking a response.

Orrick had served as bond counsel to the state at the time the services were rendered for the program. The contract allowed the firm to provide legal services to other state agencies as well. The firm currently does not have any contract to serve as bond counsel with the state.

The treasurer's office is awaiting a response from another firm that did business with the state for the college savings program on a separate issue raised in the audit.

A Georgia consulting firm, GIF Services, was overpaid $300,000, according to the audit released in May.

The audit was sought by legislators after Marshall said in March that it appeared funds for the program were diverted for unauthorized legal expenditures and marketing costs.

The audit also raised the issue of whether Krolicki broke state law by not depositing $6 million in state-earned fees into the state treasury. The audit has been turned over to the attorney general's office for an investigation.

Krolocki, now lieutenant governor, has said he broke no laws in his management of the program during his eight years as treasurer.

The program was established by the 2001 Legislature to allow parents to invest money in mutual funds to build up college funds for their children.

None of the money that parents invested is missing or ended up in an improper account, according to the audit.

"He doesn't respect the court. He ain't here," attorney Gregory Lattimer told the U.S. District Court jury, motioning toward an empty chair next to Iverson's lawyer at the defense table. "He doesn't respect anything that isn't Allen Iverson."

Marlin Godfrey and David Anthony Kittrell say the fight was started by Iverson's bodyguard and entourage when the pair refused to vacate a VIP section for Iverson at the Eyebar nightclub in Washington. Iverson, 32, testified that he didn't see the fight.

Godfrey and Kittrell claim the bodyguard, Jason Kane, and Terrance Williams assaulted them. They allege that Williams, a friend of Kane, was acting on Iverson's behalf.

Godfrey was badly beaten during the melee, suffering head and other injuries. Lattimer said he suffered depression and other long-term health problems from the incident.

The lawsuit says Iverson is responsible for the brawl because he failed to properly supervise Kane and Williams _ but it does not claim he took part in the fight. The suit also accuses Kane of assault and battery for allegedly beating Godfrey with items that include a bottle.

Iverson said Monday the suit was a get-rich-quick scheme by the two men, who targeted him because of his wealth and fame. Kane testified he wasn't involved in the fight and hustled Iverson out of the club when a brawl appeared imminent.

Iverson's lawyer, Alan Milstein, told jurors Thursday that Kittrell and Godfrey lied about details of the fight and who instigated it.

Iverson had no role in the melee, and wasn't responsible for Williams, who was not working for him, Milstein said. He echoed Iverson's claim that the case was an attempt to fleece the wealthy NBA star.

"The only reason Mr. Iverson is sued is because he's got the money. This whole case is about who's got it and how do we get it," Milstein said.

Iverson faces another lawsuit for another nightclub fight involving his security in Hampton, Va. That happened less than two weeks before the Washington fight.

July marks the 30th anniversary for a Carbondale law firm that has technically been in existence for the last 99 years.

Feirich/Mager/Green/Ryan and Associates, 2001 W. Main St. near the Westtown Mall in Murdale, established its current banner in 1977, but the roots of the firm stretch back to 1908, when local attorneys W.W. Barr and C.E. Feirich started a practice together.

Firm partner Richard Green, one of the founders of the business' current iteration, said lasting 30 years in one form means you're doing well; lasting nearly a century in some fashion is extraordinary. Then again, the firm has always been known for beating the odds, he added.

"You think about it, in 1977 we were a six-person law firm, a size that was unheard of at that time. People said it wouldn't survive," Green said.

It did and has grown into a firm housing 15 lawyers, six paralegals and numerous other staff members.

There was a time when Southern Illinois was considered underserved with its number of attorneys, partner John Ryan said.

"There's an old saying that goes if there is one lawyer in town he'll starve to death, but if there are two, they'll do just fine," Ryan said.

Today the Jackson County Bar Association alone has more than 240 registered attorneys, Ryan said. Being an attorney is a lucrative career option, he said, because lawyers are called on quite often.

"The work is a byproduct of our society," Ryan said.