Thelen or Heller Ehrman — which firm will find a dance partner first? Last week, all eyes were on Heller, which reportedly flirted with Baker & McKenzie before launching talks with Mayer Brown (which, as far as we know, haven’t yet culminated in anything).

Today, however, the spotlight has swung back to Thelen (which rhymes with “wheelin’,” not “failin’”). According to the National Law Journal’s Leigh Jones, Thelen is in talks with Nixon Peabody. A combined firm would have about 1,150 attorneys.

A spokesman for Thelen did not confirm to the NLJ that it was speaking specifically with Nixon Peabody, although he said that the firm is actively pursuing a merger partner. The firm has lost several partners in recent months and, earlier this year, made a splash by laying off 26 associates, a sum which now seems rather modest.

In a statement released by Nixon Peabody, the firm said: “While we are open to considering growth opportunities that are consistent with our strategic objectives and criteria, it would be inappropriate to comment on any specific discussions at this time.”

This just in: erstwhile lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to four years in prison Thursday by judge U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle. Here’s the AP report.

Abramoff pleaded guilty in early 2006 to three criminal felony counts in a Washington, D.C., federal court related to the defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials. The following day he pleaded guilty to two criminal felony counts in a separate federal court, in Miami, related to his fraudulent dealings with casinos. He’s served time on the latter charges; the sentence handed down today related to the Washington charges.

”I come before you as a broken man,” Abramoff said at his sentencing on Thursday. ”I’m not the same man who happily and arrogantly engaged in a lifestyle of political and business corruption.”

According to the AP, Abramoff appeared “crestfallen” as the judge handed down a sentence lengthier than prosecutors had sought. Abramoff faced up to 11 years in the Congressional corruption case, though prosecutors had asked for a reduction, citing Abramoff’s assistance in other investigations. Had U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle accepted the Justice Department recommendation regarding his sentence, Abramoff could have been out of prison after another three years and three months.

Remember that slightly cringe-worthy episode a couple years back involving President Bush and a sunglasses-wearing reporter? In attempt at some good-natured fun, President Bush ribbed a reporter about his wearing sunglasses on a cloudy day. Thing was, the reporter had an eye condition that required he wear them, a fact that triggered a presidential apology.

We were reminded of that story today when we came across a bizarre New Jersey Law Journal story involving a Garden State judge who became, in the words of the story, “obsessed” with a sex offender’s wearing sunglasses in court. Yesterday, a state appellate court ordered a new hearing for the offender over the lower court judge’s remarks. Click here for the link.

The backstory: S.B.M., who is mentally retarded and an alcoholic and has a history of violent sex crimes, has been involuntarily confined since 2003, subject to annual review under New Jersey’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. At a December 2007 hearing, a forensic psychiatrist was testifying about S.B.M.’s mental condition when Essex County Superior Court Judge Serena Perretti interrupted: “Doctor, is there any reason why [he has to] wear those black glasses?” The doctor reportedly demurred, but Perretti repeatedly told S.B.M. to remove the glasses. Each time, S.B.M. told the judge he had a medical condition that required he wear them. The doctor ultimately checked S.B.M.’s medical records and told the judge that “tinted lenses were medically necessary.”

But Perretti wasn’t amused, stating that “use of black glasses in courtrooms are universally considered to be threatening gestures.” She ruled that civil commitment for S.B.M. should continue.

But a ruling yesterday threw the continued confinement into question. Wrote two Appellate Division judges: “The issue of the dark glasses was trivial, it had no relevance to the issue of S.B.M.’s continued confinement. . . . But, it showed the judge’s unwillingness to believe S.B.M., even when his statement that he had a medical form was corroborated. It also calls into question the judge’s ability to conduct a fair hearing.”

S.B.M.’s lawyer, Deputy Public Advocate Joan Van Pelt, says she is trying to schedule an expedited second hearing. She declined to comment on the ruling or discuss S.B.M.’s history. The attorney general’s office did not return telephone messages.

As was widely expected, Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick this morning agreed to plead guilty to two felony charges of obstruction of justice by committing perjury, ending the mayor’s two-year tenure. Wayne County Court prosecutors said the agreement includes 120 days in jail, a payment of $1 million and probation for five years. He will resign office. Here are stories from the WSJ and the Detroit Freep.

As part of the agreement, Kilpatrick this morning told the court: “I lied under oath in the case of Gary Brown and Harold Nelthrope versus the city of Detroit . . . I did so with the intent to mislead the court and jury, to impede and obstruct the disposition of justice.”

Kilpatrick’s troubles began in January when the Detroit Free Press published text messages between Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, that appeared to contradict their sworn testimony in a trial last year that they didn’t have an affair. In March, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy charged Kilpatrick with multiple felony charges including perjury.

Detroit City Council President Ken Cockrel Jr. will become the city’s 61st mayor.

Photo: AP

This just in, from the Detroit Free Press: Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick is slated to plead guilty later tomorrow morning to some of the charges against him in a six month long legal battle. Click here for the Detroit Free Press account; here for the WSJ story; here Law Blog post from earlier today on the case.

The mayor’s troubles began in January when the Detroit Free Press published text messages between Kilpatrick and his former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, that appeared to contradict their sworn testimony in a trial last year that they didn’t have an affair. That led the mayor being charged with multiple felony charges, including perjury, in March.

We’ll of course update the story when details of his plea agreement emerge.

As details of Sarah Palin’s past have dribbled out over the last several days (Troopergate, her daughter’s pregnancy, her husband’s DUI), some have questioned the thoroughness of John McCain’s veep-vetting process. So it’s perhaps only natural that the name A.B. Culvahouse would start appearing with more frequency.

Culvahouse, the chairman of O’Melveny & Myers, a former counsel to President Reagan and a well-respected Beltway lawyer, was tapped by McCain earlier in the year to head up McCain’s VP search team.

Both the LA Times and the Washington Post report today that Culvahouse sat down with Palin for a lengthy interview last week. When asked by the LA Times why more of Palin’s Alaska colleagues hadn’t been contacted, McCain aide Mark Salter said that Culvahouse and his team of lawyers “are very good and very discreet.”

An American Lawyer article out today on the topic asks whether McCain’s timing may have made life difficult for Culvahouse and his team. McCain’s need for discretion and secrecy may have compounded problems. According to the WaPo, Culvahouse was chasing down last-minute information about Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at the request of the campaign as late as last Thursday, the day McCain offered the job to Palin and she accepted. Culvahouse did not respond to a request for comment made by AmLaw, and did not immediately respond to a call placed by us.

Still, as Palin gears up for tonight’s speech at the Republican Convention in St. Paul, the campaign is sticking by her wholeheartedly. Asked by the LA Times whether there was any chance Palin would be dropped from the ticket, Salter responded indignantly: “Why? What would be the reason? Her daughter’s pregnant? A bunch of cable chatter? He made the right pick. He’s very excited.”

Photo: O’Melveny & Myers

Behold the mighty power of the Blogosphere. George Washington University Professor John Duffy (pictured) published an article in July of last year on the Patently-O blog in which he exposed a flaw in the patent appeals board appointments. From that little bloggy seed, a controversy grew, arguments for which the Federal Circuit is slated to hear today.

Lawyers for a company called DBC will ask the Federal Circuit to vacate a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences which rejected DBC’s patent for a beverage made from the mangosteen fruit. DBC argues that two of the judges on the panel were improperly appointed. The administrative judges on the panel comprise “inferior officers” and can only be appointed by the president, the courts or the head of a department. The judges on the panel were appointed by the director of the Patent and Trademark Office. Here’s a report from the Blog of Legal Times.

President Bush in August signed a bill that says the Secretary of Commerce will appoint patent appeal board members in consultation with the director of the Patent and Trademark Office. Left unresolved, however: what would happen to all the decisions made by patent judges sitting by improper appointment?

In the eyes of the government, DBC doesn’t have a case partly because the issue was raised too late in the game.



Law Blog Tropical Fruit of the Day: Why, of course, it’s the mangosteen. According to its Wikipedia entry, the mangosteen is a tropical evergreen tree, believed to have originated in the Sunda Islands and the Moluccas. The fragrant edible flesh can be described as sweet and tangy, citrusy with peach flavor and texture. Botanically, it bears no relation to the mango.

Indulge us for a moment, Law Blog readers. Let’s say you’re a career minor-league baseball player not unlike Crash Davis, Kevin Costner’s character in Bull Durham (pictured). Let’s say that year after year, you’ve put up good numbers (as they say) at the AAA level, one stop away from the majors, but you’ve never really gotten your shot at the big time (or the big money). Let’s also assume that you’ve never dabbled in performance-enhancing drugs but feel pretty strongly that some guys who’ve passed you on their way up to stardom haven’t always played fair and square. Is there anything you can do?

Of course there is! You can sue! That’s what ESPN columnist Rick Reilly proposes in a recent column.

The idea may sound a little bit out there, but to Reilly’s credit, he actually sized up what such a lawsuit might look like. Writes Reilly: “I think minor league players like Jones should file a class action, restraint of trade lawsuit against Major League Baseball because they sat stewing in the minors while big leaguers were allowed to cheat.”

For help putting together his hypothetical complaint, Reilly checked in with Stanford labor-law professor William Gould. According to Gould, a class of disgruntled minor-leaguers would have to show 1) a correlation between steroid use and better performance; 2) that MLB turned a blind eye to steroid use; and 3) “Nonstatutory labor examption considerations. (Reilly doesn’t pretend to understand what this means, claiming only that “a good shark would gobble it right up.”)

To be sure, Reilly’s a humor writer (and a pretty good one at that), so we can’t be entirely sure if he’d back up his idea tooth and nail. Any labor or antitrust lawyers out there care to weigh in?

We typically save our “upcoming-term previews” for the Supreme Court. But today, we’re going to bring it down one notch and take a look, courtesy of Legal Times, at what the D.C. Circuit has in store this fall. Why the D.C. Circuit? For starters, the Bush administration is involved in several cases, cases which could help define the administration’s legal legacy. Second, we figure you’ll have a leg up when these cases inevitably make their way to the Supremes down the road.

U.S. v. Philip Morris: Topping the list is United States v. Philip Morris, an appeal of the decade-long civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry. Philip Morris, now known as Altria Group, is challenging the 2006 verdict which found that it and six other Big Tobacco defendants conspired for years to deceive the public about the health risks of tobacco. In addition to upholding the lower-court verdict, the government is asking the court to order the tobacco industry to pay more than $12 billion to fund a smoking cessation program and to fund an educational, counter-marketing campaign. Miguel Estrada of Gibson Dunn and Michael Carvin of Jones Day plan to argue the case on behalf of Altria.

NAM v. Taylor: Is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 constitutional? The National Association of Manufacturers doesn’t think so. Later this month, the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments over whether the law’s requirement that private associations reveal information about members who’ve given more than $5000 violates the First Amendment. Quentin Riegel, NAM’s deputy general counsel, says the internal deliberations of the association are not for the prying eyes of the government. “Some of our issues are quite controversial,” says Riegel. “Congress wants to know who of our members participated and that has the potential for damaging our member companies.”

Mo Gitmo: As the Legal Times writes, no D.C. Circuit term would be complete without a Guantanamo case or two. This time, it’s about whether federal judges can force the government to give detainees, their attorneys, and the court 30-day notice before any transfer and removal from the military base. The government claims that the notice requirement would ‘’illegitimately encroach” on foreign relations and national security, thereby damaging the government’s ability to coordinate counterterrorism efforts with other countries. However, the petitioners, Chinese Muslims, want advance notice of any transfer in order to raise an objection.

Photo: M.V. Jantzen, from Flickr

Indeed, it was about a year ago when we blogged a National Law Journal story about labor law firm Ford & Harrison’s decision to do away with hourly-billable requirements for first-year associates.

And how has the experiment gone? Pretty well, according to this NLJ follow-up piece. Simply by dropping the billable-hour requirement, the firm has gotten first- year associates working directly with clients, who typically are happy to see a second attorney working the case ? so long as they are not billed. The program requires first-years to “bill” 1,900 hours of work that’s either billable to clients or defined as training — working with senior partners on depositions, witness and trial preparation, client meetings and the like.

Jessica Walberg, a first-year associate in the firm’s Orlando office, said that she has had the opportunity to sit in on depositions, arbitrations, negotiations and mediations while law school friends at other firms are toiling on research projects and document review. Said Walberg to the NLJ: “This is great ? [doing this] instead of working on this or that research project and never seeing the big picture, like my buddies working at other firms. I would say they are generally unhappy and I am generally happy.”

Meg Holman, a partner and director of professional development at the firm, said the firm has been surprised at how fast first-year associates begin to produce work that is billable once they are no longer under pressure to do so. “We have been very pleasantly surprised at how proficient the associates have become in so short a time. Around month six or seven, across the board, you could see they were turning a corner. Their billables went up.”

This just in from the West Coast: Private investigator Anthony Pellicano (pictured) and attorney Terry Christensen were convicted of conspiring to illegally wiretap the ex-wife of billionaire Kirk Kerkorian. Here’s the L.A. Times story.

Christensen, who was an attorney for Kerkorian, was accused of hiring Pellicano to listen in on the phone conversations of Lisa Bonder Kerkorian during a bitterly fought child support case. The lawyer and investigator were each charged with two felony counts relating to the alleged wiretap.

In the end, notes the LAT, Christensen was the only one to be indicted among a number of marquee entertainment attorneys who used Pellicano’s services.

Pellicano, 64, had been found guilty in May of another 76 counts, which included racketeering, wire fraud and computer fraud in addition to wiretapping. Christensen’s attorneys asked that their client be tried separately from that case, in which a jury also delivered sweeping guilty verdicts against Pellicano’s co-defendants: a police sergeant, phone company employee, computer technician and a businessman who prosecutors said helped run Pellicano’s wiretapping enterprise.

Experts said the additional convictions were unlikely to have much effect on Pellicano’s sentence, which some estimated would not be more than 10 years. But for Christensen, a conviction means not only a possible prison term, but also the likely loss of his law license, damage to his reputation and a negative effect on the 110-lawyer Century City firm he co-founded, experts told the LAT.

In a classic case of the First Amendment running up against zoning laws, Stephanie Babines (pictured) is suing Adams Township in Pennsylvania for refusing to allow her to open a dance studio that features pole-dancing exercise classes on the grounds it’s a sexually oriented business. Here’s the AP report, and here’s the complaint.

Although Babines’ classes include pole-dancing, power lap dance, strip tease and “SeXXXercise,” they are all taught and performed fully clothed, the lawsuit states. Men can’t take the classes, and no spectators are allowed.

Township code enforcement officer Gary Peaco said he couldn’t comment on pending litigation. Township solicitor Charles Flach did not return the AP’s call seeking comment.

From the complaint:

The studio is not a men’s entertainment club or strip joint, nor is it a mere front for such activity. Rather, the dance Ms. Babines hopes to teach is part of a growing national exercise movement. Chronicled in U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, Pittsburgh Magazine, and Oprah Winfrey’s talk show, pole dancing provides “a workout that combines aerobics, dance, yoga, [and] strength training.” Ms. Babines has seen her dance classes help women get in shape, build self-confidence, and express their sexuality. A recent report documented how the craze has even spread to China. But while a repressive country like China allows dance studios to teach pole dancing, the defendants in this small Butler County town have misapplied their zoning code to deny Ms. Babines her right to teach this new combination of art and sport to interested adult women.

The suit states that, at an appeal hearing in May, Peaco, the enforcement officer, testified that he didn’t need to interview Babines because her Web site’s “pink-and-black color scheme . . . and the high-heeled shoe in her logo” indicated to him she planned to run a sexually oriented business.

The Web site, OhMyYoureGorgeous.com, contains class descriptions for hoop aerobics, power lap dance, stiletto strut and cardio kick boxing.

Heller has certainly made the rounds in recent months as it searches for a suitable merger mate.

Fresh off its aborted tie-up with Baker & McKenzie, San Francisco-based Heller is now in merger talks with another Chicago-based firm, according to this American Lawyer blog posting.

Mayer Brown and Heller declined comment. Earlier in the year, the firms had shelved the idea of merging, according to AmLaw, because Mayer’s management was leery of conflicts with Heller’s insurance recovery practice.

The purported merger talks are surprising from one standpoint: Mayer Brown was significantly more profitable than Heller last year, with $1.3 million in average partner profits compared to Heller’s $1 million in average profits, according to American Lawyer.

But firms often look to merge when they have faced turmoil, and Heller and Mayer have had plenty.

Last year, Mayer Brown fired or demoted 45 partners—about 10% of its equity partnership—to try to improve its profitability. Some top partners have since left the firm, including Raniero D’Aversa Jr., it’s former co-chair of bankruptcy, who departed this week to Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP in New York. And one of Mayer Brown’s partners, Joseph Collins, who is on leave from the firm, was indicted last year on fraud and other charges in connection with his representation of the failed commodities and derivatives firm Refco Inc. The firm was not charged, and Mr. Collins has said he is innocent and is fighting the charges.

Heller has also seen many of its partners defect recently to competitors. On the plus side, Heller and Mayer Brown have been able to poach lawyers from other firms.

“We have seen much greater merger interest this year by law firms, especially large law firms,” William Brennan, a law-firm consultant with Altman Weil, Inc., told the Law Blog. “By the end of the year, we expect some mega mergers to be consummated, involving law firms with more than 200 lawyers merging with another firm of at least that size.” Law firms, he adds, “do not decide to merge just because there is a recessions; however, some firms that are intensely affected by the current economic crisis have been forced to consider a merger strategy.”

In a development that could portend some good news for Google-owned YouTube, a federal judge in San Jose has ruled that Veoh, the video-sharing service, isn’t liable for copyright infringement for material that was uploaded to its site. Here’s U.S. District Judge Howard Lloyd’s summary judgment opinion that dismisses a 2006 suit brought by Io Group, an adult-entertainment production company. And here’s a WSJ report.

Judge Lloyd ruled that Veoh qualifies for the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because it doesn’t “actively participate or supervise the uploading of files. . . . Instead, video files are uploaded through an automated process which is initiated entirely at the volition of Veoh’s users.” He added that the evidence “demonstrates that, far from encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its website and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its Web site.”

Meanwhile, Viacom is suing Google for $1 billion, alleging that YouTube has been illegally hosting its proprietary content. The spat, which awaits trial in the Southern District of New York, made headlines last month when Google opposed turning over data about its users to help Viacom build its case until a Judge ruled that Viacom must hand over the information.

So what might the Veoh ruling mean for Viacom, Google and YouTube? YouTube’s chief counsel, Zahavah Levine, was quick to trumpet the result in a statement: “It is great to see the Court confirm that the DMCA protects services like YouTube that follow the law and respect copyrights. YouTube has gone above and beyond the law to protect content owners while empowering people to communicate and share their experiences online.”

A spokesman for Viacom didn’t have an immediate comment.

“Over the course of the summer, leaders at the country’s biggest law firms have come to an unpleasant realization: They’re about to employ more lawyers than they need.” That’s the opener to a column in today’s paper, entitled “No Joke: Law Firms Hire More Lawyers Than Needed,” by our very own Ashby Jones.

The credit-crunch, writes Jones, along with “a strange and rigid hiring process that has been entrenched for a long time,” have conspired to leave law firms with an over-abundance of $160,000 paperweights. Much of the problem lies with the summer associate program, which requires firms to commit to law students two (or more) years before they will actually begin as first-year associates. (For instance: This fall’s incoming associate class was hired in the fall of 2006, during Wall Street boom times.)

All that certainty, for the firms and the law students, doesn’t add up to much business sense, writes Jones. Indeed, with the flaw in the law firm hiring process now so glaring due to a spiraling economy, bigger firms are questioning the tradition. “It’s created challenges,” admits James Rishwain, the chairman of Pillsbury Winthrop. Earlier this year, Pillsbury and other firms decided to stagger the start dates of incoming associates to several months over the course of the fall, rather than having them all start in September. “We’ll look for secondment opportunities,” he adds. “And technology will help us. Lawyers in L.A. can work on New York-based projects, and vice versa.”

With all the problems associated with the hiring process, why stick with it? Rishwain says the social functions and mentoring of a summer-associate program builds camaraderie and morale across all levels. And the programs give both the firms and summer associates the opportunity to back out of a bad fit. We wonder, though, how often do either of those scenarios really happen?

Others cite tradition. “It’s existed for decades and hardly anyone gives any critical thought to it,” says Mark Rust, the head of Barnes & Thornburg’s Chicago office. Earlier this month, Rust’s office chucked its summer-associate program, largely because of the hiring difficulties it creates. “Now, when we look at our staffing, we ask, ‘Who is it that we need?’ ” he adds. “If we need a restructuring lawyer, we’ll go out and hire one as a third-year or as a lateral attorney. It’s ‘just-in-time inventory.’”

Jerry Seinfeld attends the premiere of “Sex and the City” at Radio City Music Hall in New York. (AP/Evan Agostini)

The justices of the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, are “Seinfeld” fans. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Yesterday, in a 50-page ruling on a dispute between author Tom Clancy and his ex-wife, Wanda King, over whether Clancy violated his financial responsibility to King when he removed his name from a book series, Justice Glenn Harrell, writing for the majority, launched into a lengthy disquisition comparing the contract issue at stake to a “Seinfeld” episode called “The Wig Master.”

Ultimately, the court held there was “potentially competing evidence” as to whether Clancy acted in good or bad faith and sent the case back to the lower court. But in footnote 27 it offered the following bit of guidance:

Jerry Seinfeld, perhaps an unlikely legal illustrator, once epitomized the duty of good faith in contract. In an episode of his television show, Jerry’s character purchased a jacket at a men’s clothing shop. The terms of the contract permitted Jerry to return the item for refund at his discretion. When Jerry attempted to return the jacket after an unrelated personal quarrel with the salesman, the following discussion took place.

Jerry: Excuse me, I’d like to return this jacket.
Clerk: Certainly. May I ask why?
Jerry: For spite.
Clerk: Spite?
Jerry: That’s right. I don’t care for the salesman that sold it to me.
Clerk: I don’t think you can return an item for spite.
Jerry: What do you mean?
Clerk: Well, if there was some problem with the garment. If it were unsatisfactory in some way, then we could do it for you, but I’m afraid spite doesn’t fit into any of our conditions for a refund.
Jerry: That’s ridiculous, I want to return it. What’s the difference what the reason is? . . .

In attempting to exercise his contractual discretion out of “spite,” Jerry breached his duty to act in good faith towards the other party to the contract. . . .

We’re not sure what John Quinn’s litigation bill amounts to for his work on the Barbie-Bratz spat, but we hope that Mattel’s $100 million verdict covers it.

A federal jury in Riverside, Calif., just returned a $100 million verdict for Mattel, according to an early Reuters report, about $1.9 billion less than the company requested.

Quinn Emanuel’s John Quinn, who repped Mattel, had asked the jury for $2 billion for stealing the conceptual drawings of the Bratz doll -- at least $1 billion in Bratz profit and interest, and another nearly $800 million for the complicity of MGA’s CEO, Isaac Larian.

As some of you may remember, for a week in April the Law Blog put all our eggs in one basket as we covered the Harry Potter fair use trial, in which J.K Rowling and Warner Bros. sued RDR Books, the publisher of the H.P. Lexicon, for copyright infringement. (See all LB coverage of the case here.) Then the trial ended and we were called back to the office to sit and wait for an opinion from the SDNY’s Robert Patterson.

Four months later, we continue to wait for a ruling. (Hint, hint, Judge Patterson.) In the meantime, we bring you Harry Potter litigation news from . . . Mumbai. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Warner, a division of Time Warner, has filed a lawsuit against Mumbai-based producer and distributor Mirchi Movies. The suit is related to the title of its upcoming film “Hari Puttar — A Comedy of Terrors.” “Hari Puttar” reportedly centers on a 10-year-old Indian boy whose family moves to England. The film is slated for a Sept. 12 release.

According to the Reporter, the Hari Puttar name became a comic gag in India when the first “Harry Potter” film was released. Hari is a popular Indian name, and “puttar” means “son” in the Punjabi language.

The case was reportedly heard today in the Bombay High Court.

“Since the case is sub-judice, we can’t comment as of now,” Mirchi Movies CEO Munish Purii told the Reporter. “However, we registered the ‘Hari Puttar’ title in 2005, and it’s unfortunate that Warner has chosen to file a case so close to our film’s release. In my opinion, I don’t think our title has any similarity or links with ‘Harry Potter.’ “

In a development that resembles shades of “A Few Good Men,” two Camp Pendleton Marines refused to testify on Friday in the trial of former Sgt. Jose Nazario, the first marine to stand trial in civilian court for crimes said to have occurred while he was serving in Iraq.

Here’s a report from the San Diego Union-Tribune, and here’s past LB coverage of Nazario’s trial.

According to members of Nazario’s squad, as he was leading his soldiers through three weeks of house-to-house fighting in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, they entered a house and found unarmed men hiding under a staircase. Those men, according to testimony of some in Nazario’s squad, didn’t leave the house alive. Nazario denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty.

Meanwhile, two of Nazario’s squad — Sgts. Ryan Weemer and Jermaine Nelson — await a military court-martial for allegedly helping Nazario kill the men. (Nazario’s case is going through U.S. District Court in Riverside, Calif., because he left the military.) Weemer and Nelson were put behind bars a few months ago for not testifying before a grand jury. Now, the federal judge in Nazario’s trial, Judge Stephen Larson (who’s coming off the Barbie-Bratz throw-down), found them to be in criminal contempt on Friday.

As the court session began, attorneys for Weemer and Nelson reportedly said their clients needed a letter of immunity from Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, who’s overseeing their prosecution at Camp Pendleton. But Judge Stephen Larson, who’s presiding over Nazario’s civilian trial, said a grant of immunity in federal court would be valid in any other U.S. judicial arena, including the military courts.

To that, Weemer’s lawyer, Chris Johnson, said: “He is on trial for his very life. Look at the Purple Heart on this Marine’s chest and understand what it means for him to be on the stand and refuse a direct order. He’s protecting the only thing he’s got left.”

Judge Larson said: “It’s my understanding that a Marine has something other than his life, and that’s his honor and integrity. The court is calling on his honor and integrity, and the Constitution he has sworn to uphold and defend.”

Larson set a hearing for Sept. 29 to discuss the criminal-contempt issue. He said jailing Weemer and Nelson right away wouldn’t persuade them to testify. “My suspicion is, considering what they’ve been through, there’s not a lot that these men fear,” Larson said.

The backdating scandal at Brocade has heralded a few legal twists. In May, a shareholder derivative suit named Brocade’s law firm, Wilson Sonsini, accusing the firm of malpractice for blessing backdating at the company. Then, Wilson Sonsini agreed to pay Brocade $9.5 million to release itself and its chairman, Larry Sonsini, from possible civil claims filed by a Brocade special litigation committee stemming from the company’s backdating mess.

Now two San Diego-based plaintiffs firms — Johnson Bottini and Robbins Umeda & Fink — have agreed to drop their backdating suits and flip over to Brocade’s special litigation committee, a gig that guarantees them $8 million, plus a piece of anything that’s recovered from the 10 former Brocade execs who’ve been sued by the company. Here’s the story from the Recorder.

Dewey & LeBeouf, the lawyers on the special litigation committee, filed this engagement letter after Northern District of California Judge Charles Breyer said at a Thursday hearing that he wanted the agreement between Dewey and the plaintiffs lawyers out in the open. The engagement letter caps the company’s total obligation to Johnson Bottini and Robbins Umeda at $25 million, though it allows it to choose to pay them more.

The special litigation committee filed the suit for Brocade on Aug. 1 and sought to dismiss the pending state and federal derivative suits filed by Johnson Bottini and Robbins Umeda.

Neither Marc Umeda nor Frank Bottini returned the Recorder’s calls seeking comment.