Dow attorney David Bernick argued Wednesday that the law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz has an ethical conflict in representing Rohm & Haas because it has advised Dow in the past on key strategic issues and has a continuing relationship with the Michigan-based chemical giant.

But Wachtell attorney Marc Wolinsky said Dow cannot prove a continuing relationship with his law firm, and that any confidential information it might have received from Dow in the past would not give Philadelphia-based Rohm & Haas a material advantage in the current litigation.

Wolinsky also said Dow has known since June 2008 that Wachtell Lipton was representing Rohm & Haas, and that Dow has waited too long to object.

Chancellor William Chandler III told attorneys that we would rule on the motion for disqualification by the close of business Wednesday.

Dow has said that it cannot complete the buyout as planned because of global economic conditions and the decision by a state-owned Kuwaiti petrochemical firm to pull out of a joint venture that would have provided Dow with several billion dollars, some of which would have been used to acquire Rohm & Haas.

A trial to determine whether Dow should be forced to complete the acquisition using a bridge loan or other financing scheme is set to begin March 9.

Corrections officials said Tuesday they are struggling with their response to a tentative federal court ruling this week that the state must remove as many as 57,000 inmates over the next two or three years.

The state's 33 adult prisons now hold about 158,000 inmates. But the judges said overcrowding is so severe it unconstitutionally compromises medical care of inmates, and releasing prisoners is the only solution.

"We are just now beginning to have discussions (about) who these types of inmates would be. Then, how do we get to that number?" said Matthew Cate, secretary of the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The department has no contingency plan, he said, other than appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court once the ruling becomes final.

The judges said their ruling does not amount to throwing open the cell doors.

Most juvenile offenders are released when they turn 18, but the extended commitment law allowed the Department of Youth Services to retain custody up to age 21 if a youth posed physical danger.

In unanimously striking down the law, the Supreme Judicial Court said it was unconstitutional because the law "contains no indication of the nature and degree of dangerousness that would justify continued commitment."

The court noted that the Legislature in 1990 had removed language that the danger a youth posed be due to a mental condition.

"The court said we don't lock people up based on an allegation of dangerousness when we don't know what that means," said attorney Barbara Kaban, deputy director of the Children's Law Center of Massachusetts.

She represented the three youths who challenged the law. Kaban said the three had been charged with crimes that included larceny and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon.

All were turned over to the department's custody when they were 16. Each was initially placed on probation, then sent back to a juvenile detention facility after violating the terms of probation at least once. The department filed applications for extended commitment orders for all three shortly before they turned 18.

Jennifer Kritz, a spokeswoman for the Department of Youth Services, said the department is reviewing the court's ruling and expects to be ordered to release about 12 youths being held under the law.

The court system had to close down Friday afternoon after a computer virus affected access to data on court cases. Courtroom operations aren't expected to be back in business before Thursday morning.

People can pay fines and conduct other court business, but judges will not call dockets. Those with court dates for misdemeanor cases will be notified by mail of their new dates.

The virus hit 475 of the city's 16,000 computers and infected part of Microsoft Windows that handles the login process.

Gwendolyn Goins, spokeswoman for the court system, says she does not know how many cases have been affected. She said there's no evidence the virus was released deliberately.

The company said the bonuses are needed to dissuade the 154 employees from leaving before what was the nation's second-largest consumer electronics retailer closes for good.

Employee turnover threatens the wind-down plan and the company's ability to "maximize value for their estates and stakeholders," Richmond-based Circuit City said in the filing.

Circuit City has already had some key employees leave, including former chief financial officer Bruce H. Besanko, who will start in a similar role at OfficeMax Inc. on Feb. 16.

The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in November as it faced pressure from vendors, heightened competition and waning consumer spending. Last month Circuit City announced it would liquidate its 567 U.S. stores, cutting more than 34,000 jobs.

Going-out-of-business sales should last through March, after which the stores will be closed. A small staff will keep working at the corporate office through the process.

Under the company's proposal, 16 executives would split up to $2.3 million if they achieve specific target tasks such as staying within the wind-down budget and obtaining the sale of Circuit City's Canadian and Internet assets. The remaining non-managerial workers would share no more than $1.62 million.

The judge said last week she was inclined to throw out those results unless someone could directly testify to collecting the slugger's urine samples. The likeliest candidate to be able to do so is Bonds' former trainer, Greg Anderson. A lawyer for Anderson has said his client won't testify at Bonds' upcoming trial.

In a court filing Monday, prosecutors included snippets of Bonds' grand jury testimony saying Anderson collected the samples. It also included testimony from a former BALCO executive saying Anderson dropped off urine samples labeled with Bonds' name.

Bonds is charged with lying to a grand jury about alleged steroid use.

The so-called state secrets privilege was invoked by the previous administration to stymie a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program.

"The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the state secrets privilege to ensure that is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations," Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said Monday.

"It's vital that we protect information that if released could jeopardize national security, but the Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know," said Miller.

Even as officials promised a thorough review, government lawyers continued to invoke the state secrets law Monday in a federal appeals court in San Francisco. That case involves a lawsuit over the CIA's extraordinary rendition program.

Under that program, U.S. operatives seized foreign suspects and handed them over to other countries for questioning.

Some former prisoners subjected to the process contend they were tortured. Proving that in court has been difficult, as evidence they have sought to corroborate their claims has been protected by the president's state secrets privilege.

The American Civil Liberties Union has been urging the Obama administration to drop its state secrets claim.

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero criticized the new administration's handling of the San Francisco case by continuing the legal arguments of the prior administration.

"Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue," Romero said in a statement.