Lewis Freeman made some desperate phone calls to friends and family last August.

He needed $1 million.

The attorney-accountant had to hustle to make up for a shortfall in a fraud case in which his Miami firm had been appointed receiver. Freeman had stolen $1.5 million from the receivership of Hess Kennedy, a debt settlement firm closed down by the Florida attorney general's office. It turned out he had been moving money around from his court-supervised accounts for more than a decade, while pilfering $2.6 million from creditors and victims of fraud.

But then the Hess Kennedy marker came due.

"The scheme fell apart when several courts asked him to make distributions on fiduciary matters, and Freeman was unable to do so because he stole too much money," Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Levi told U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck.

King & Spalding announced its long-awaited 2010 pay scale for Atlanta partner-track associates Tuesday in an internal memo obtained by the Fulton County Daily Report.

Under the new scale, which is retroactive to Jan. 1, pay ranges from $135,000 for a first-year associate to $190,000 for an eighth-year. The 2010 scale pays each associate class $10,000 less than the old scale, established at the start of 2008. King & Spalding still uses a lockstep pay system.

The firm also announced that it will pay associate bonuses for 2009. The 2008 bonus scale remains intact. For Atlanta associates billing 2,050 or more hours, bonuses range from $7,500 for first-years to between $30,000 and $55,000 for seventh-years.

The memo was from Mason W. Stephenson, the Atlanta managing partner, to partner-track associates.

Six of the nine Supreme Court justices attended the State of the Union address in January, but don't be surprised if that number goes way down next year, in light of comments made by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in Alabama on Tuesday.

Roberts spoke to University of Alabama Law School students in Tuscaloosa. During a question-and-answer period, he was asked about the rare episode at this year's address, in which President Barack Obama criticized the Court's campaign finance ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, with the justices sitting in front of him. Senators sitting near the justices stood and cheered Obama's remarks while the justices, as is their custom, sat impassively. Only Justice Samuel Alito Jr. registered mild disapproval, furtively shaking his head and appearing to mouth the words "not true."

Plaintiffs lawyers have been positioning themselves for a front seat in the mounting litigation arising from the sudden unintended acceleration problems in vehicles manufactured by Toyota.

Approximately 150 lawyers assembled on Friday at the InterContinental Chicago hotel to discuss sharing experts and legal strategies in the Toyota litigation, which now exceeds 80 lawsuits. Many of the lawyers have broken into camps based on which jurisdiction they believe should hear the multidistrict litigation against Toyota -- and, perhaps more importantly, which judge should decide the cases.

One of the most popular districts under consideration is the Central District of California in Los Angeles, near the headquarters of Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. Lawyers supporting this locale include products liability attorneys Mark Robinson Jr. and Richard McCune as well as Toyota's lawyers, Cari Dawson and Lisa Gilford, both partners at Atlanta's Alston & Bird. McClune was the first into court against Toyota.

The second trial of blogger Harold "Hal" Turner, the New Jersey white supremacist charged with threatening to kill three Chicago federal judges, has resulted in a second mistrial.

At the end of their second full day of deliberations Wednesday, the jurors sent a note to the judge stating that another day of deliberations would be useless, the third time they reported they believed a unanimous verdict was impossible.

This time, Judge Donald Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation, let them go.

He tentatively scheduled the third trial to begin on April 12.

The mistrial constitutes a serious defeat for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, which prosecuted the case in Brooklyn federal court.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Across a broad spectrum of scholars and advocacy groups, it was agreed that the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago presented the best -- and possibly the last -- chance to revive the argument that the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment was the soundest way to apply individual rights like the Second Amendment right to bear arms to states and localities.

So when Alan Gura rose at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 to assert that the clause was a "simpler, more essential" path than the traditional due process clause, he had the wind at his back in the form of liberals and conservatives alike cheering him on from the packed audience.

Then reality struck. First, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., and then Justice Antonin Scalia, brusquely swept the argument aside in favor of the tried and true path of due process. Scalia was derisive in his criticism of Gura, noting that the privileges or immunities argument was the "darling of the professoriate" and hinting that Gura was "bucking for a place on some law school faculty" by advancing it. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed worried about unforeseen consequences of Gura's approach, asking him what unenumerated rights might be swept in by invoking the privileges or immunities clause.

A former television producer pressured by debt and riven by jealousy admitted Tuesday he tried to extract vengeance and money by shaking down David Letterman in a case that bared the late-night icon's affairs with staffers.

Robert "Joe" Halderman pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny, acknowledging he tried to chisel $2 million from the late-night icon. He threatened to destroy Letterman's reputation by airing his workplace dalliances -- using information authorities have said he mined from a former girlfriend's diary.

The plea deal by Halderman, a producer for CBS' "48 Hours Mystery" at the time, spares him a potential 15 years in prison had he been convicted. The 52-year-old is due instead to get a six-month jail sentence and 1,000 hours of community service.

The Georgia Supreme Court last week ruled that criminal indictments against two Carroll County lawyers must be dismissed, ordering the state Court of Appeals to reverse its prior ruling allowing the indictments to stand.

According to the Carroll County pair's attorneys, the high court's move puts to rest a case that Georgia's criminal defense bar worried could threaten the livelihoods -- and liberty -- of lawyers whose clients are ultimately convicted.

"The order of the Supreme Court demands that the bill of indictment against both attorneys be dismissed with prejudice," said Brian Steel, whose client, Valerie C. Cooke, was charged along with Candace E. Rader in twin seven-count indictments. The women were accused of stealing from the estate of a murder victim by accepting legal fees from his wife, who first inherited her husband's estate but ultimately pleaded guilty to a murder-for-hire plot.

Fourteen years after they began, a federal judge on Tuesday dismissed the lawsuits over Filegate, closing the book on a scandal that became an ongoing thorn in the side of the Clinton White House and helped launch Larry Klayman into temporary national prominence.

The plaintiffs sued the FBI, the Executive Office of the President and a smattering of White House figures, including then-first lady Hillary Clinton, in 1996 after the administration revealed that it had mistakenly ordered up the FBI files of more than 400 Bush I and Reagan administration officials. The case, spearheaded by Klayman and his conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch, led to a parade of high-profile depositions, but seemed to sputter as the years dragged on. Hillary Clinton was dismissed as a defendant last year.

The Broward Circuit, Fla., Court lawsuit is a page turner worthy of a bestseller: A housekeeper employed only months by a Holocaust survivor in Monaco ends up in control of a $400 million fortune after he dies under "suspicious" circumstances.

The lawsuit claims the woman manipulated the widow, who was suffering from dementia, and cheated a number of Israeli charitable, education and research organizations that were the rightful beneficiaries.

A defense attorney maintains the lawsuit centered on the estate of Walter and Anna Bronner is fiction, and courts all over the world have agreed.

The case has touched down in Monaco, Liechtenstein, New York, London, Panama and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., -- where the Bronners had a condominium and lived part-time.

Dallas County prosecutors will seek an indictment for murder against plaintiffs attorney Scott Marshall in connection with the Dec. 20, 2009, shooting death of Staci Montgomery, the ex-wife of Marshall's former law partner, Bady Sassin. According to an e-mail from Jamille Bradfield, spokeswoman for the Dallas County district attorney's office, prosecutors will present the case against Marshall to a grand jury on Friday.

Montgomery’s death occurred as the two former partners were engaged in a legal battle. Sassin filed Sassin Law Firm v. Marshall Law Firm in August 2009, alleging that Marshall did not hold up his end of the partnership after they agreed to start Marshall Sassin in January 2009. In his first amended petition, Sassin accuses Marshall of fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among other things -- allegations Marshall denies in his response and countersuit.

Trial lawyer Kenneth Turnbull started at King & Spalding's Washington, D.C., office on Tuesday, the fifth partner to join the firm's professional liability and securities litigation practices from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe since the beginning of February.

Turnbull, who had worked at Orrick's Washington office for the past eight years, represents Big Four accounting firms in Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement proceedings and federal investigations.

"King & Spalding has an excellent reputation for its liabilities practice. I'm enthusiastic to join," said Turnbull, who earned his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law.

David Schaefer, global director of communications for Orrick, said that despite the loss of the five partners, the firm still has a 65 lawyer-strong security and litigation enforcement group.

The New Jersey Supreme Court is deciding if a title insurer can be held liable for a lawyer's theft of a home buyer's funds if it fails to tell the buyer directly it is not responsible for the lawyer's misdeeds.

The case, Lawyers Funds for Client Protection v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., A-44-09, argued Monday, is being closely watched by the title industry, which could become a deep pocket for fleeced clients if the appeals court ruling below is allowed to stand.

Stuart and Susan Goodman hired Richard Pizzi, their neighbor in Bedminster, N.J., to represent them in the purchase of a new home in Somerset in 2003. They sold their existing home and gave the net proceeds to Pizzi, but he stole them. The theft was not discovered until his trust account checks bounced.

Dallas police say charges against a former city attorney accused of shooting a father and son inside their financial business are on hold because the accused gunman isn't expected to survive.

Police say Robert Mustard shot himself in the head after shooting the others Monday. The 60-year-old was in intensive care Tuesday.

Police Sr. Cpl. Kevin Janse says aggravated assault charges won't be filed if Mustard dies.

Police say Mustard turned the gun on himself after shooting 66-year-old Richard Smith and 39-year-old Christopher Smith. Richard Smith was shot four times in the legs. His son was shot in the head and neck. Both remained hospitalized but stable Tuesday.

Authorities believe Mustard was upset about financial dealings.

Mustard, who worked for the city of Dallas in the 1980s, received his law degree from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in 1978, according to an SMU spokeswoman.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have decried the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations, but those who are frustrated with the process shouldn't expect an immediate change, a panel of Senate experts said Tuesday.

The panel, organized by the liberal American Constitution Society, included Martin Paone, a former secretary of the Senate's Democratic caucus. Paone said he favors keeping some version of the filibuster, and that many senators do, too, because it gives them influence over presidential picks.

"Having an ability to filibuster a judge requires a president to pick people who are mainstream," said Paone, now executive vice president of the lobbying firm Prime Policy Group.

Another panelist, Makan Delrahim, witnessed the confirmation wars of George W. Bush's administration as a Republican lawyer for the Senate Judiciary Committee. As staff director and chief counsel under Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Delrahim said he saw how "brutal" the process can be for nominees. "I have a real problem with the filibuster. I think it eats away at the Senate and the decorum the Senate is known for," he said.