They call him "psychologically abusive." He insists their "venomous attacks" and "reckless hyperbole" are motivated by greed and personal vendettas.

They say they were appalled by his "fiscal and executive mismanagement" and "reckless and wasteful spending." He dismisses their accusations as "baseless and defamatory."

It's the kind of overheated language that often has aggrieved parties hiring lawyers. But in this case, lawyers themselves are making the angry allegations. And their dispute is detailed in a tell-all lawsuit that lays bare an ugly business divorce, the kind usually settled behind closed doors.

The case, which goes to arbitration this month, involves the acrimonious breakup of the founders of Donovan Hatem, a 50-lawyer Boston law firm. Nine former partners have sued the firm and founder David J. Hatem, whom they describe as jealous, tyrannical, and dictatorial, claiming they are owed a collective $2 million in unpaid compensation.

The lawyers, who left the firm last summer to open a new Boston firm, LeClairRyan, accuse Hatem of manipulating the firm's finances to prevent them from be ing fairly paid. They also allege he wrote off bills for favored clients, spent lavishly on marketing to promote mainly himself, and wasted money on first-class travel that he billed to the firm rather than to his clients.

In legal filings, Hatem has lashed back, arguing that his former partners are trying to humiliate and destroy a firm with which they now compete. He accuses one of them of billing Donovan Hatem for New England Patriots season tickets that went to clients of their new firm, and says the incompetent legal work of two others resulted in a pending malpractice allegation that could cost Donovan Hatem $50,000.

"This is all very much about Mr. Hatem not wanting to pay his partners," said Warren D. Hutchison, a plaintiff in the lawsuit who had worked with Hatem for nearly 20 years. "He really considers nobody of any value other than himself, and he was incapable of recognizing the worth in his former partners."

Hatem's lawyer, Michael E. Mone, did not return a call. But in legal documents, Mone asserts the plaintiffs sued "to embarrass and harm their former partners, particularly Mr. Hatem," and calls their case "an outrageous and salacious effort to leverage a quick payment of money to which they are not entitled."

A call to Hatem was returned by Andrew M. Paven of O'Neill and Associates, a Boston public relations firm. In a statement provided by Paven, the firm described the suit as "baseless and defamatory."

Donovan Hatem was established in 2001 by John A. Donovan Jr., who died of cancer in 2005, and Hatem, who specializes in representing architects, engineers, construction firms, and the companies that insure them. Both men left the Boston firm Burns & Levinson to launch their practice, taking 38 other Burns & Levinson lawyers - a third of the firm - with them.

The United States accused Canada of misinterpreting the agreement to give its exporters an unfair advantage.

The ruling marked a victory for the Western Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta when the panel found against the U.S. claim that the provinces owed millions of dollars in export taxes aimed at limiting export surges.

Under the deal, Canadian lumber exporters can either pay export charges of up to 15 percent based on their selling price to the United States, or cap the charge at 5 percent along with an export quota that restrains volume.

British Columbia has traditionally produced about half of all the softwood that Canada exports to the United States.

However, the court found that Quebec and Ontario in Canada's east, which are also big producers and use the quota option to limit their exports, had sent too much lumber south.

"Under the panel decision, producers in the east of Canada will be penalized for over-shipping their allowable quota," said Zoltan van Heyningen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, the U.S. industry group that has been driving the complaints.

Canada claimed at least partial victory and said the ruling was a healthy step for the bilateral 2006 agreement, which was designed to avert more years of long, expensive lumber lawsuits.

"While Canada believes that it has fully complied with the agreement, we respect the tribunal's ruling ... Today's decision provides clarity with respect to the implementation of the SLA (Softwood Lumber Agreement) in the future," said Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson.

The United States had argued that the starting point for calculating export charges and volumes should be the first quarter of 2007, while Canada argued it should be July 2007. The court sided with the United States on that issue.

The two countries have one month to propose possible remedies for the overshipping issue, which might entail docking future exports, Van Heyningen said.

The U.S. coalition said it disagreed with the findings on the western provinces, which it said "let Canada off the hook regarding past collections of 'surge mechanism' export taxes," which they estimated at up to about $85 million.

The Bush administration has filed a separate complaint at the court, alleging that certain Canadian provinces were improperly propping up their lumber industries.

Warning that mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures are likely to rise, with more declines in house prices, Bernanke called for active measures from both the public and private sectors to stabilize housing markets.

"This situation calls for a vigorous response," Bernanke said in a speech to the Independent Community Bankers of America, referring to government and private-sector initiatives to slow the rate of home loan failures.

"Measures to reduce preventable foreclosures could help not only stressed borrowers but also their communities and, indeed, the broader economy," he said.

U.S. government bond prices shed early losses and turned higher, while stocks extended their declines and the downtrodden dollar touched another all-time low against a basket of currencies.

Market bets of a Fed rate cut at its March 18 meeting ticked down slightly to roughly a 66 percent chance of a cut in benchmark interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point from the current 3 percent.

Bernanke's comments come as the central bank grapples with the twin dilemmas of a slowing economy and rising inflation. U.S. economic growth slowed to a sluggish 0.6 percent at the end of 2007 and hiring declined in January. But inflation rose 4.1 percent in 2007, the largest 12-month rise since 1990.

Current housing difficulties differ from past housing market slumps because of the large number of homeowners who owe more on their loans than their homes are worth, Bernanke said. 

Stanislav Shmulevich, 24, pleaded guilty as part of a deal in which he must complete 300 hours of community service. The business student was initially charged with two counts of criminal mischief as a hate crime, a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

"There was no hate crime here," said defense lawyer Glenn Morak. "He accepts responsibility, and he is repentant."

Detective Faisal Khan said Shmulevich told him "he committed the acts out of anger toward a group of Muslim students with whom he had a recent disagreement."

Shmulevich, the lawyer said, is no longer at Pace, which has about 14,000 students in New York City and suburban Westchester County.

A deadlocked U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision against Pfizer Inc's Warner-Lambert unit over withdrawn diabetes drug Rezulin in a ruling announced on Monday, allowing the case to go forward.

By a 4-to-4 vote, the court affirmed a federal appeals court ruling that reinstated the lawsuit against the world's biggest drugmaker by Michigan residents who said their injuries were caused by the diabetes drug.

The split occurred because the court's ninth member, Chief Justice John Roberts, took no part in the case because he owns Pfizer shares. The court's one-sentence ruling does not address the merits of the dispute.

Rezulin, first approved in 1996, was pulled from the market in 2000 after about 100 people who took the medicine needed liver transplants or died. Pfizer has fought thousands of lawsuits claiming the drugmaker failed to warn the public about the drug's toxic effects.

The high court's action clears the way for the case to proceed in federal court in New York.

At issue in the Supreme Court case was a Michigan state law that provides pharmaceutical companies immunity from such suits except when it can be proven that the manufacturer defrauded the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Gay rights advocates sued to overturn the ban four years ago after the court halted a monthslong same-sex wedding spree that saw thousands of couples marry at City Hall.

The justices were scheduled to hear three hours of arguments in six cases.

"I think I speak for everybody when I say that this has been a long time coming and a day that has been eagerly anticipated," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who is representing the city in a lawsuit supporting gay marriage.

The cases were filed after the court stopped the same-sex marriages in the winter of 2004. More than 4,000 couples exchanged vows at the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom months before gay marriage became legal in Massachusetts, although the high court ultimately voided the unions.

In briefs submitted to the court, same-sex marriage supporters argued that California's Constitution leaves no room for denying gays and lesbians the right to wed.

They say that while the state is one of a handful where gay couples are entitled to most of the same legal rights as married spouses, the institution of marriage is too important to allow for alternatives that are by definition inferior.

"We're very hopeful that California history will stay true today and we'll see the constitution vindicated for the thousands of families in California who depend on our equal place under law," said Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund who is representing gay couples.

The state and same-sex marriage opponents, however, maintain that limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex is reasonable — not only to uphold tradition but because California voters approved a ballot initiative eight years ago bolstering the gay-marriage ban that was in place at the time. To overturn that law, they say, would abrogate the rights of all Californians.