The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered two estate planning companies and their co-owners to pay nearly $6.4 million, the state's largest-ever fine for the fraudulent practice of law.

The owners and employees of American Family Prepaid Legal Corp. and Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services Inc. of Columbus committed more than 3,800 acts of unauthorized law practice by participating in a "trust mill" operation, the court said.

The ruling comes about six years after a complaint by the Columbus Bar Association against the companies was resolved when American Family, Heritage and its owners signed an agreement in which they promised to stop marketing and preparing trusts and other estate planning services.

From March 2003 to March 2005, the companies targeted Ohioans 65 and older with exaggerated mail and magazine advertising aimed at dissuading them from obtaining a will. Sales representatives who were not licensed as attorneys to advise on estate planning gave "high-pressure" in-home presentations in which customers were told they would save money by purchasing one of the companies' living trusts, the court said.

The court permanently barred the California-based companies, and co-owners Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, from marketing, selling or preparing living trusts, estate planning documents and other legal services in Ohio. Other company employees were ordered to pay fines ranging from $2,500 to $10,000.

The court noted that it has found other similar trust mills illegal, and that such trusts may not be needed, may be insufficient or could be harmful for certain people.

The Supreme Court seemed receptive Tuesday to reinstating the death sentence of a flamboyant neo-Nazi convicted of murdering three men in Ohio more than a quarter century ago.

Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray told justices during oral arguments that Frank Spisak had a fair trial and deserves death. Cordray urged the high court to reverse a federal appeals court ruling that found Spisak's trial lawyer was ineffective and that his jury received faulty sentencing instructions.

Spisak, 58, was convicted of three murders at Cleveland State University over a seven-month period in 1982 — crimes he said were motivated by his hatred of gays, blacks and Jews. At the same time, Spisak claimed his crimes were sparked by mental illness related to confusion about his sexual identity. He wants to have surgery to become a woman.

The 1983 trial became a public spectacle as Spisak celebrated his killings in court and openly discussed his hateful views. He even grew a Hitler-style mustache, carried a copy of Hitler's book, "Mein Kampf" during the proceedings and gave the Nazi salute to the jury.

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that Spisak's trial attorney essentially gave up on his client in closing arguments by conceding that Spisak was "demented" and "undeserving of sympathy."

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider reinstating the sex trafficking and forced labor conviction of a man dubbed the "S&M Svengali."

The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal filed by federal prosecutors in the case of Glenn Marcus, convicted after a sensational trial that dealt with mutilation and extreme humiliation. Arguments will be held early in 2010.

Last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the conviction violated the Constitution because Marcus was convicted of breaking a law, the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, that wasn't in place when some offenses happened.

In September 2007, Marcus was sentenced to nine years in prison for abusing a woman he photographed for his Web site, which reveled in sadomasochism. She was identified only as "Jodi."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no part in the court's consideration of the case. She was on the appeals court panel that ruled in Marcus' favor and joined in the panel's decision. But she wrote separately to suggest that the ruling, though required by a string of 2nd Circuit cases, might not be in line with the Supreme Court's view of the case.

The ruling turned on authorities' use of the 2000 law to prosecute Marcus for incidents spanning from 1999 to 2001. Marcus' attorneys argued, and the court agreed, that the law was applied retroactively.

A Florida appeals court has chastised a judge for granting extensions in a foreclosure case for compassionate reasons.

The Third District Court of Appeal ruled last week that Circuit Judge Valerie Manno Schurr could not grant extensions solely on grounds of benevolence or compassion.

Schurr had given a Miami couple an extra month to sell their house. The judge said in court she understands times are bad and that she hates to see anyone lose a home.

The appeals judges ruled that the law doesn't allow compassion or benevolence alone to be used as the basis for such a decision. The court said the continuance was an abuse of judicial discretion and the one-month delay should not have been granted.

The house was sold at auction last week for $1.3 million.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday said he would nominate a pair of Northeastern judges to appeals court positions.

Judge Denny Chin, a district court judge for the Southern District of New York, and Rhode Island Superior Court Justice O. Rogeriee Thompson were tapped for positions. If confirmed by the Senate, Chin would serve as a judge in the 2nd Circuit, based in New York, and Thompson would serve in the Boston-based 1st Circuit.

"Judges Chin and Thompson have displayed exceptional dedication to public service throughout their careers," Obama said in a statement. "They have served on the bench with distinction in New York and Rhode Island, and I am honored to nominate them today to serve the American people on the United States Court of Appeals."

Chin was born in Hong Kong and moved to the United States at the age of 2. A Princeton University and Fordham Law School graduate, he clerked in the Southern District of New York and worked in private practice. He was an assistant U.S. attorney for four years before returning to private law.

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday indicated that a federal law aimed at graphic videos of dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty goes too far in limiting free speech rights.

The court heard argument on the Obama administration's appeal to reinstate a 10-year-old law that bans the production and sale of the videos. A federal appeals court struck down the law and invalidated the conviction of Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fights.

Several justices suggested that the law is too broad and could apply, for instance, to people who make films about hunting.

"Why not do a simpler thing?" Justice Stephen Breyer asked an administration lawyer. "Ask Congress to write a statute that actually aims at the frightful things they were trying to prohibit."

But the lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, said Congress was careful to exempt hunting, educational, journalistic and other depictions from the law. Katyal urged the justices not to wipe away the law in its entirety, but to allow courts to decide on a case-by-case basis whether videos are prohibited.

When Congress passed the law and then-President Bill Clinton signed it in 1999, lawmakers were especially interested in limiting Internet sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by showing women crushing to death small animals with their bare feet or high-heeled shoes.