Google Inc. has replaced the high-profile attorney leading its defense against a $1 billion lawsuit filed by Viacom Inc.

The lawsuit filed by Viacom in March claims copyright infringement based on the unauthorized appearance of numerous Viacom shows on Google's YouTube video-sharing service.

In May, Google retained Phil Beck, of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, to lead its defense. Beck is best known for representing George W. Bush in Florida during the 2000 presidential election, and working with the U.S. Department of Justice in its antitrust settlement with Microsoft Corp.

But in a filing in U.S. District Court in New York, Google attorneys requested that Beck and fellow Bartlit Beck attorneys be replaced by attorneys from international firm Mayer Brown LLP.

Google litigation counsel Catherine Lacavera said in a prepared statement that, "We decided to make this change because it appeared that scheduling conflicts might pose problems as we move into the more active stages of discovery."

Lacavera added that, "Mayer Brown has a substantial presence and history practicing law in New York, where the lawsuits are pending."
Making such a move well before a possible trial in the case is not unusual, said Charles Hosch, an intellectual property attorney with Strasburger & Price LLP. "It's certainly not automatically an aspersion or some sort of indication of anything untoward," Hosch said.

Mayer Brown attorney Richard Ben-Veniste, who will be assuming Google's defense as part of the switch, is also a high-profile attorney, best known for his role as Watergate prosecutor in the 1970s, and as a member of the 9/11 Commission.

While retaining Beck was considered a significant move by Google, "retaining Ben-Veniste is a big deal, too," Hosch said.

The tax agency said Thursday that in the 2007 budget year it audited one out of every 11 with incomes of $1 million or more. Among those with incomes of $100,000 or less, 99 out of every 100 escaped further IRS scrutiny.

Still, the IRS said its auditing rates were generally up for people of all income levels. The rates were 9.25 percent for those with incomes of more than $1 million, up from 6.3 percent in 2006; 2.87 percent for those with incomes above $200,000, up from 2.57 percent; and 0.93 percent for those earning under $100,000, compared to 0.89 percent the previous year.

Overall, the IRS looked at 1,384,563 returns in fiscal 2007, 1.03 percent of the total individual returns of 134.4 million in the previous calendar year. The audit rate was up 7 percent from the previous year.

There were 31,382 audits of those with $1 million incomes, up 84 percent from the 17,015 audited in 2006.

On the business side, the IRS said the audit focus was on partnerships and mid-market corporations, those with assets between $10 million and $50 million.

The returns of 59,516 businesses were audited in 2007, 0.66 percent of the total and compared to 52,223 in 2006. About one out of six large corporations with assets of $10 million and higher was audited, 9,644 out of 57,357, were audited, down slightly from the previous year.

The tax agency said its enforcement budget in 2007 was largely unchanged from 2006, so it had to focus on areas of growth and potential risk.

It said enforcement revenues in fiscal 2007, from collections and appeals activities, were $59.2 billion, up from $48.7 billion the previous year.

The IRS also noted that 57 percent of individual tax filers filed electronically last year, up from 54 percent in 2006.

In fact, some lawyers who represent investors argue the high court decision involving cable company Charter Communications and two of its suppliers, made a clear distinction that justifies hearing the Enron case.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that shareholders cannot sue third parties in securities fraud cases, unless investors relied on their statements or representations when making investment decisions.

Stoneridge Investment Partners, on behalf of Charter shareholders, had accused the two suppliers of scheming to inflate company revenues in 2000.

Lawyers for investors point to sections of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, which they say makes a distinction between third parties involved in the goods and services arena and those involved in the investment sector.

"He repeatedly made that distinction. That distinction distinguishes Enron from Stoneridge," said Pamela Gilbert, a consultant for the American Association for Justice, the world's largest trial bar association.

"Stoneridge involves a customer relationship. In Enron, the major wrongdoers are the investment banks involved in the financial transactions," Gilbert said.

Justice David Medina was indicted in the June fire at the couple's home in the Houston suburb of Spring that also damaged a neighbor's house, Medina's attorney Terry Yates told KHOU-TV. It caused a total of nearly $1 million in damage.

It was the second fire at the home in 10 years, and both blazes started in the garage.

Francisca Medina, the judge's wife, was charged with arson, the station reported.

Medina, 49, is a former district judge in Harris County, which contains Houston, and was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Rick Perry in 2004.

The Harris County prosecutor told the station he will move to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.

Circuit Judge John B. Hagler of Cleveland, Tenn., resigned last month after the local prosecutor, an investigator and the Chattanooga Times Free Press asked him about the tape he had recorded years earlier.

The newspaper, The Associated Press and other news organizations had asked that the tape be released, but Hamilton County Chancery Court Judge Frank Brown ruled Thursday that it is not a public record and should be returned to Hagler.

"Private documents do not become public just because someone provides them to a law enforcement official," the judge said in the ruling.

Hagler's attorney, Roger Jenne, said that while Hagler was "extremely grateful" for the ruling, investigators should "get back and investigate what is really behind" the leak of the tape's existence.

Chattanooga police investigated the tape in 2005, after a secretary who had just been fired by Hagler turned it over. She said she found the recording of the judge's voice on a tape that also contained legal dictation.

Few details of the tape's content have been made public, but police testified during a court hearing that it was disturbing and sounded like someone being tortured.

They said they initially thought the tape might be linked to the unsolved 1997 shooting death of an Episcopal priest, the Rev. Charles Martin "Marty" Davis, 35, in Chattanooga. But Brown said in the decision Thursday that there was no apparent link.

Brown disagreed with Chattanooga police who said the tape was needed in their records as exculpatory evidence in the Davis killing. He said it was no more related to the Davis case than "books written about Charles Manson."

About two years after the investigation ended, the tape made its way to the prosecutor in Hagler's district, District Attorney Steve Bebb. After the Times Free Press learned about the recording from an unidentified source in December, Hagler confirmed it and resigned.

Bebb said in December that the tape "would disturb any human being who heard it," and that he sent a copy to the state Court of the Judiciary, which handles complaints against judges. The court, however, has no jurisdiction because Hagler resigned, a court spokeswoman said.

Hagler, who had been a circuit judge in Cleveland since 1990, has said that he did nothing wrong but that the recording had caused great embarrassment to friends, relatives and the courts. He strongly suggested the leak was committed by someone with a grudge against him, perhaps someone he ruled against.

In a statement issued last month, he said describing the recording as "graphic fantasies" was "accurate and sufficient ... and all any decent person would want to hear of it."

Brown said the newspaper and Chattanooga officials who had previously agreed to release the recording would have 30 days to contest it. The Times Free Press has not decided whether to do so, said its publisher and executive editor, Tom Griscom.

Jenne said there is a question as to whether someone "leaked this information in retaliation for decisions he has made in the past."

"Find out who the culprit is," he said

Jenne said release of the tape by anyone other than the parties in the case would bring a "pretty significant lawsuit."

A telecommunications executive once called the biggest tax cheat in U.S. history is getting hit with new Internal Revenue Service demands seeking hundreds of millions of dollars just as he starts a nine-year federal prison term.

The IRS sent Walter C. Anderson a notice of deficiency for more than $180 million and additional fraud penalties totaling more than $130 million, according to a recent court filing by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan B. Menzer disclosed the tax demands in a recent memo to a federal judge seeking permission to share grand jury testimony with the IRS. Anderson is suing the IRS from federal prison in New Jersey.

In his lawsuit, Anderson, who made his fortune in telecommunications and once backed plans to privatize the Mir Space Station, disputes the IRS calculations, denies committing tax fraud and says his guilty plea wasn't voluntary, court documents show.

Anderson pleaded guilty in September 2006 to tax-evasion charges for failing to report more than $350 million in income on his 1998 and 1999 tax returns.

Authorities said the unpaid taxes from Anderson could have funded hundreds of new police officers and teachers in the District.

At Anderson's sentencing last year, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman gave Anderson nine years in prison, but did not order him to make restitution to the IRS. The judge cited an error by prosecutors who failed to include probation as part of Anderson's plea agreement.

The ruling meant authorities would have to try to pursue restitution through civil courts.

"Party chairmen like the system, for obvious reasons, and people who run for the legislature are usually in a position where it's difficult to vote for something like this because their party leaders are opposed to it," state Sen. John DeFrancisco said after Wednesday's ruling. DeFrancisco, a Republican, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In New York, primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Once nominated, the candidates run on the general election ballot, frequently without opposition.

Unsuccessful candidates for judgeships and a watchdog group won a lawsuit challenging the system, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don't have the support of party leaders.

The rulings said candidates who are not the choice of party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts, saying there is nothing unconstitutional about the process. The high court said the state legislature is free to change the system if it wishes.

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch — who was among a diverse group of politicians and legal groups asking the court to uphold the lower court rulings — called the decision a "dreadful mistake."

"The county leaders will now continue to basically assure the appointment to the (state) Supreme Court of their candidates," Koch said.

The state legislature adopted the current system 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because they didn't want them to be corrupted by raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries.