An attorney sees a court's opinion upholding e-mail privacy as potentially groundbreaking and possibly helpful to his client, the founder of a company that sold male enhancement pills.

Lawyer Martin Weinberg said Wednesday that e-mail evidence should have been excluded from the government's case against Steven Warshak, who was convicted of fraud and other crimes related to his Ohio company. It sold products including Enzyte pills, known for their "Smiling Bob" commercials.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati threw out Warshak's 25-year sentence Tuesday. The court also said Warshak's rights were violated when investigators obtained his e-mails without warrants, but it upheld his convictions.

A federal judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit can be filed against Florida over the sale of personal driver's license information to a private firm.

The lawsuit claims the state, specifically the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, improperly sold about 30 million personal records between 2005 and 2009 to Shadowsoft Inc., an Irving, Texas-based Internet marketer.

Shadowsoft then sold the information to other firms that target consumers.

An attorney representing the drivers told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that the sales violate a federal statute banning the disclosure of personal information from driver's licenses.

Howard Bushman says addresses, dates of birth and possibly Social Security numbers were released.

The judge in Tallahassee ruled earlier this month that affected drivers can become members of the suit.

Copyright 2010 High Plains Broadcasting LLC All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The Supreme Court will not get involved in a New York dispute over whether officials can curb some law firm television commercials.

The high court refused to hear an appeal from New York officials who passed rules that would curb some television commercials from local law firms.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down much of the state's proposed regulations, which included bans on client testimonials or paid endorsements, and nicknames, mottos or trade names that suggest an ability to obtain results.

Personal injury firm Alexander & Catalano and advocacy group Public Citizen Inc. challenged the rules.

The firm wanted to be known as "The Heavy Hitters" but abandoned the motto for fear of running afoul of the new rules.

The Mountain States Legal Foundation has built a reputation as an influential behind-the-scenes player over the years on conservative legal causes.

It has waged battles against affirmative action and protections for endangered species while being bankrolled by some of the most powerful families in the West.

The group is now fighting a protracted legal battle with American Indians who believe the organization is trampling on their voting rights in a rural Wyoming county.

At issue is a local dispute over the election of county commissioners in Fremont County. Mountain States Legal Foundation has been representing the county pro bono for the last five years in a fight against American Indians who want greater representation on the commission.

That Mountain States has waded into such a local dispute further demonstrates the clout it seeks to wield in Western legal disputes, in this case arguing first that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 didn't apply to Indians in Fremont CountyFailing at that, it's now arguing on appeal that a federal judge can't order the county to create separate commission districts.

A Philadelphia law firm used nonlawyers to file untold numbers of mortgage foreclosures across the state and fraudulently collected attorney's fees that caused people to lose their homes in cases which should be legally nullified, a Pittsburgh lawyer claims in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as a bankruptcy court judge, also in Pittsburgh, has given the same firm, Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, until the end of business Friday to self-report to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Agresti filed two opinions castigating the firm and the lender it represented, Countrywide Home Loans, in a foreclosure that led a Pittsburgh-area woman to file for bankruptcy in 2001.

The judge determined a Goldbeck attorney knowingly gave the court phony lender documents to bolster its foreclosure claim saying "the evidence that (the attorney) lied was considerable."

Attorneys at the Goldbeck firm have not returned calls for comment from The Associated Press on Judge Agresti's findings or the 78-page lawsuit filed last month by Patrick Loughren.

Loughren told The Associated Press he could not comment on his lawsuit, but said the document made clear his reason for filing it.

The lawsuit spells out two broad goals: defending the legal profession, and pursuing a remedy for those facing foreclosure and those who have already paid attorneys fees or lost their homes in actions filed by the Philadelphia firm.

"As one court has stated, 'It must be borne in mind that it has always been held that a professional man has standing to prevent the improper invasion of his profession,'" Loughren's lawsuit said.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class- action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and, products liability and other claims.

If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has granted review in this important case,” Wal-Mart said in a statement. “The current confusion in class-action law is harmful for everyone — employers, employees, businesses of all types and sizes and the civil justice system. These are exceedingly important issues that reach far beyond this particular case.”

Brad Seligman, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview after the court decision: “Wal-Mart has thrown up an extraordinarily broad number of issues, many of which, if the court seriously entertained, could very severely undermine many civil rights class actions. We welcome the court’s review of this limited issue, and we’re confident that the core of our action will go forward.”