Still, many veterans of those days must feel a sense of betrayal. Was what we stood up for as right - and this applies to those urging obedience to the law and those protesting in the streets - all wrong?

Members of the county school board must feel that the high court has turned its back to its efforts to make classrooms' racial makeup reflect the county's.

Lost among the arguments and counterarguments was the simple fact that the case didn't have to be. Louisville had won national attention in 1956 for voluntarily desegregating its public schools in compliance with Brown vs. Board of Education. It was a token action since housing patterns dictated that neighborhood schools would remain single-race.

By the 1970s, the city's demographics had changed. Housing patterns, in part spurred by urban renewal, had shifted. Louisville's West End, once dominated by ethnic, blue-collar families, became the home for blacks fleeing the inner city and, in many cases, urban renewal's relentless bulldozers. White families moved to the suburban developments springing up across Jefferson County.

A ring of small cities surrounding Louisville blocked the city from annexing the new communities. And the county's sleepy, essentially rural school system found itself scrambling to build schools fast enough to accommodate the influx.

By the early 1970s, it was apparent the Louisville school system was close to the tipping point where the city's remaining white families would flee. The county schools, by contrast, were almost all white. There were a few historically black neighborhoods scattered across the county, most of them in one school district. Both districts became the target of desegregation suits. The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights argued that the districts should be merged.

The city school board then complicated the cases. It bowed to the reality of a shrinking tax base and the threat of white flight and went out of business. The Legislature enacted merger legislation, and the systems, which had little respect for each other, began to try to reconcile their cultures and educational philosophies. U.S. District Judge James Gordon, who was hearing the desegregation suits, gave them breathing room by finding both systems legally desegregated.

But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't convinced. Newburg School, serving a historically black community, went through the eighth grade. All other county elementary schools stopped at the sixth grade. It was a vestige of de jure segregation that Judge Gordon acknowledged having had difficulty "writing around" in finding the schools in compliance with Brown.

The case bounced back to Judge Gordon with an order to put a desegregation plan into effect. To help in drafting it, Judge Gordon turned to two young administrators in the city system. They developed a system of school clusters, pairing inner city predominantly black schools with suburban schools. Students were to be transported among the schools according to the first letter of their last name. To achieve racial balance, white students would be bused two years; black students, 10.

Implementation of the plan marred Louisville's image across the country. The ugly pictures from protest marches and rallies showed up on the 6 p.m. news nationwide. The Courier Journal and Louisville Times building at Sixth and Broadway became a favorite target because of our calls for obedience to the law. Reporters and photographers covering the marches and rallies took an undeserved share of the abuse.

To have it end up with the almost flip statement by Chief Justice John Roberts that the "way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" is dismissive of centuries of discrimination. It puts down the good-faith efforts by Louisville and thousands of other communities to overcome that past.

Americans of all races deserve better of their highest court.

Each year, the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University and the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona turn out 300-plus fledgling counselors.

Recruiters said that law firms will need to change recruiting tactics to snag them, though.

"This generation expects more personal support, and they expect high levels of responsibility and concurrent responsibility," Dewey said.

Katherine Swenson, a summer associate at Greenberg Traurig, an international firm cited by National Law Journal, suggested that savvy firms spend more time introducing themselves to students.

"You actually have some time in first year that could be used to learn more about different firms, and first year is when you don't really have many chances to meet them," Swenson said.

Ilone DeRemer, assistant dean at ASU's College of Law, said that "firms need to remember the greatest amount of marketing done to law students is through word-of-mouth on campus."

Liepold noted that many firms are updating tactics to reach more students. Most changes center on electronic marketing. Some firms have developed streaming videos about their work and culture, while others offer podcasts about current legal topics.

"Summer programs have become much more substantive," Liepold said. "They're offering more seminars, more writing assistance, and, overall, a more realistic work experience."

Carol Allen, chief recruitment officer for Greenberg Traurig, said that these things are to attract a new breed of law student.

"What they bring to the table is amazing. They have a vast diversity of experience, and they live really interesting and vibrant lives," she said.

"They're (also) not necessarily convinced they will spend all their lives in a law firm."

Today's recruits have the ability to find an unprecedented amount of information about prospective employers, Dewey said, and many firms are posting blogs and other material on the Internet.

Some firms are active on social-networking sites or sponsor events at select law schools.

"It's really the same techniques professional athletic teams use in recruiting," Dewey said.

Ten years ago, Greenberg Traurig began to be more selective about its recruiting, according to Allen. Part of the strategy was to send senior staff, "people who really understand the culture of our firm," to campus-recruiting events.

They also target summer associates, where new hires are typically found, at an earlier stage by instituting a "coast to coast" event that draws up to 500 law students to 20 of the firm's regional offices across the country.

Greenberg Traurig's Phoenix office draws 30 to 50 students for the event, Managing Partner Karl Freeburg said.

"It really sets us apart and gets us in front of the students sooner (than other firms)," he said. "Then, when I get to campus in the fall, I may meet students who attended."

At Snell & Wilmer in Phoenix, Bob Henry co-chairs the office's hiring committee. His firm took heed of students' comments and instituted a Reality Program. It pairs summer associates with senior firm members who "give them an overall perspective of what it's really like, especially the quality-of-life concerns."

Henry said the firm also contacts the best candidates as early as possible.

Swenson, a second-year law student at ASU, is spending this summer at Greenberg Traurig.

"I think most students look for a firm with the right practice area and a firm you can fit into," she said.

She attended last year's summer event and was impressed with a video presentation that emphasized the firm's "ideals, values and the combination of attorneys in the firm."

Henry said reinventing recruiting is a never-ending process.

"Firms that don't change their recruiting techniques every couple of years just won't do as well," he said.

Henry also had suggestions for young lawyers sizing up potential employers.

"Walk around the offices," he said. "Check to see if people work with their doors open. Are they smiling when they walk around the office? Do they stop and say hello to people? By and large, you'll get a snapshot of how an office interacts, and that's an important thing to consider."

In 2005, the lawyers won what Gains calls the liability phase of the case, in which U.S. District Judge David D. Dowd Jr. sided with the inmates and took control of the lockup.

Generally the losing party in a case pays the winning party's legal fees.

The county's insurance company, the County Risk Sharing Authority, also known as CORSA, paid the legal fees associated with the liability phase, Gains said.

But CORSA argued it shouldn't responsible for the fees associated with the consent agreement, Gains said, and he agreed to assign his staff to represent the county in that matter and to pay Armbruster and Kelly's fees.

Brockway made no opening statement, called no witnesses, presented no evidence and did not cross-examine several witnesses in the May 2006 trial that ended with Huang being sentenced to 12 months in prison, her current lawyer Ronald O. Kaye said. Huang has been free on bail since the conviction.

Brockway said in a declaration filed as part of prosecutors' arguments opposing a new trial for Huang that he didn't cross-examine every government witness because he didn't "believe that significant points could be scored."

He also acknowledged in the filings that he lost a box of documents from Huang's previous lawyer, whom she had dismissed after he advised her to plead guilty to the federal felony charges against her.

Brockway appeared in court to represent Huang the day after the State Bar Court said he should be suspended for five years for allegedly taking thousands of dollars from four Asian immigrant clients who spoke little or no English and failing to do any work for them. The court found him culpable of 14 counts of misconduct against the four clients.

A judge ruled Monday that no pair of pants is worth $54 million, rejecting a lawsuit that took a dry cleaner's promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" to an extreme.
 

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands," wrote District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson, an administrative law judge, to pay clerical court costs of about $1,000 to the defendants. A motion to recover their tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.