The McLane Law Firm — with offices in Manchester, Portsmouth and Concord as well as Woburn, Mass. — announced the firm has absorbed the Colucci Norman Law Firm, of Beverly, Mass.

John Colucci, William Norman, Larry Plavnik, all corporate lawyers and Andrew Botti, a litigator, join McLane's business-focused firm of more than 90 attorneys, 44 of whom actively serve Massachusetts businesses in some capacity.

"Bringing the Colucci Norman team onboard delivers an opportunity for McLane to establish an immediate and trusted presence within the North Shore business community, a strategic goal we have been working towards for years," said Steven Burke, managing director of the firm's Woburn office.

The addition of these attorneys and associate support staff to McLane's Woburn, Massachusetts office necessitates the second office space expansion within a year at the TradeCenter.

"In a time when most Massachusetts firms are retracting, we're happy to be bucking the trend. McLane has seen a revenue increase of more than 40 percent over the past five years," Burke said. "It goes to show that the breadth and depth of McLane's legal expertise and the fee structure we offer is really taking hold."

A federal appeals court says Philadelphia's two major daily newspapers can deny creditors the right to use about $300 million owed them to bid at an upcoming bankruptcy auction.

Monday's split 2-1 decision upholds a lower court ruling in a bitter dispute for control of The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.

The panel says the bankruptcy code "unambiguously permits" a debtor to craft any plan that gives lenders a clear equivalent of their secured interest. The opinion says lenders have no statutory right to bid with the company's IOUs.

An auction is set for next month.

A local ownership group — comprised of two current and one new investor — hopes to win the auction with a bid of $67 million in cash and real estate.

In January, 24-year-old Christina Coronado admitted she had stolen more than $30,000 from her former employer, Zimmerman Law Firm in Waco. She claimed the money was spent on her children and bills payments.

In April 2008, Coronado embezzled the money while handling the payments and deposits of the law firm. Police say when she was caught, she quit her job and claimed to be moving away.

Coronado is now on probation for the next 10 years and will be forced to pay back about $31,000.

Connecticut's Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a lawsuit that could lead to major changes in the state's education system and how it is funded.

The decision released Monday says the state constitution promises an education that prepares students for a job or higher education.

The Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding had sued, saying achievement gaps between rich and poor towns showed some students are not receiving an adequate education to prepare them for jobs and adult life.

The decision could force a review of the state's 22-year-old formula for funding schools, which the group says has drastically hurt some towns and their students.

Two women who claimed they were forced to have gynecological exams and others strip-searched in city jails have settled a class-action lawsuit with the city for $33 million.

The suit was filed on behalf of people arrested on misdemeanor drug and weapons charges and strip-searched at Rikers Island and other jails.

Under the agreement, class members can receive between $1,800 and $2,900 each, depending on how many people respond. The plaintiffs who claimed they were forced into gynecological exams are entitled to $20,000 each for their alleged injury and suffering, according to the decision reached last week and finalized Monday.

The case included people arrested, but not convicted, between July 15, 1999 and Oct. 4, 2007. The court has already ruled that the practice violated the prisoners' constitutional rights.

A state appeals court says a 15-year-old boy whose Web site was flooded with anti-gay slurs and threats can sue a schoolmate who admitted posting a menacing message but described it as a joke.

In a 2-1 ruling Monday, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said the violent language of the message - threatening to "rip out your ... heart and feed it to you" and to "pound your head in with an ice pick" - conveyed a harmful intent that is not protected by the right of free speech.

The dissenting justice, Frances Rothschild, said no one who read all the messages posted on the Web site - in which youths tried to outdo the others in outrageous insults - would interpret any of them as a serious threat.

The case is one of the first in California to examine the boundaries between free expression and so-called cyber-bullying. The court majority said a message that threatens physical harm, even if it wasn't meant to be serious, loses its First Amendment protection and can be grounds for a lawsuit.

The plaintiff, identified only as D.C., set up a Web site in 2005 to promote an entertainment career after recording an album and starring in a film. Believing - wrongly, the court said - that he was gay, some fellow students at a Los Angeles high school posted comments that mocked him, feigned sexual interest or threatened violence.

The boy's father said he withdrew D.C. from the school, at the suggestion of Los Angeles police, and moved the family to an undisclosed spot in Northern California. D.C. sued six students and their parents, claiming hate crimes, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The ruling involved a claim by one defendant, a 16-year-old identified as R.R., that the suit interfered with his freedom of speech. In a court filing, R.R. said he didn't know D.C. personally but was offended by the Web site's self-promotional tone and "decided to add my own message to the Internet graffiti contest," posing as a parent who was so offended by D.C.'s singing that he wanted to kill him.

Six couples plus the surviving partner from a seventh filed a motion Thursday claiming the state continues to discriminate against them even though it offers civil unions to same-sex couples.

The original suit, filed in 2002, resulted in a 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court decision that came one vote short of requiring the state to legalize gay matrimony. After an effort to get lawmakers to legalize gay marriage, the effort fizzled out.

Opponents say that there's no constitutional right for gay couples to wed and that civil unions are working.

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.