The appeals court also set aside a part of the lower court's order, saying the way it was worded "could be construed to prohibit the unfavorable comparison of even Time Warner Cable's analog programming."

Analog programming refers to basic cable packages, as opposed to digital packages that allow expanded programming and additional features such as high definition (HD) or video on demand.

The television ads, which featured ex-Star Trek actor William Shatner and pop star Jessica Simpson, aired last December and in January. They ended with the tag line: "For an HD picture that can't be beat, get DirecTV."

Time Warner Cable filed the lawsuit in December, accusing DirecTV of false advertising and deceptive business practices.

In February, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction against DirecTV preventing it from running ads in Time Warner Cable's markets that disparaged the quality of Time Warner's high-definition programming.

DirecTV was also ordered then to take down any similar advertisements on its Web site, or other sites.

The Internet ads include one in which the picture quality of DirecTV is compared with that of "other TV," which the ad later identifies as representing basic cable, according to the appellate court ruling.

The DirecTV side of the screen shows a clear image of football player Kevin Dyson making a touchdown at the Super Bowl, while the image on the "other TV" side is blurry, according to the ruling.

"It is difficult to imagine that any consumer, whatever the level of sophistication, would actually be fooled by the Internet advertisements into thinking that cable's picture quality is so poor that the image is 'nearly entirely obscured,'" the court ruled.

Aguirre alleges that Willkie Farr & Gallagher overbilled the city and essentially failed to follow terms of a contract to assist the risk-management firm Kroll Inc. with a project that became an 18-month, $20 million effort.

The suit alleges that the law firm duplicated much of Kroll's work, submitted inadequate bills to disguise that, and went beyond the scope of its agreement, in part by billing the city for “lobbying” meetings with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Partner Benito Romano, who led the New York law firm's engagement in San Diego, stood by the firm's work yesterday but declined further comment about the complaint because he hadn't seen it.

In a letter that spelled out its arrangement as “counsel and assistance” to Kroll, the law firm's duties are broadly said to include “other matters that . . . may require inquiry or investigation.”

The two complaints were filed in San Diego Superior Court and could be consolidated. One suit was filed on behalf of the city of San Diego and the other on behalf of California residents, although both basically seek the same results. Aguirre is demanding $29.2 million, a total that is triple the $9.7 million the city paid Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

Outside attorney Bryan Vess, who will work on a contingency basis, filed the lawsuits for Aguirre on Tuesday after Mayor Jerry Sanders and most City Council members had begun vacations timed with a monthlong August recess. Aguirre's office made them public yesterday in response to inquiries.

Councilwoman Toni Atkins was surprised by the filing and looked forward to hearing more about it in a briefing next month.

“I think the council would like to be part of the discussion,” Atkins said. “Which is not to say that we wouldn't agree with him, but we weren't given the chance.”

San Diego's legal bills began piling up after Aguirre was elected in 2004 on a vow to root out corruption at City Hall. Increasingly, the council has argued that it should authorize all of Aguirre's lawsuits because it controls spending, but Aguirre says as the lawyer for San Diego he can file suits as necessary.