Aguirre alleges that Willkie Farr & Gallagher overbilled the city and essentially failed to follow terms of a contract to assist the risk-management firm Kroll Inc. with a project that became an 18-month, $20 million effort.

The suit alleges that the law firm duplicated much of Kroll's work, submitted inadequate bills to disguise that, and went beyond the scope of its agreement, in part by billing the city for “lobbying” meetings with The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Partner Benito Romano, who led the New York law firm's engagement in San Diego, stood by the firm's work yesterday but declined further comment about the complaint because he hadn't seen it.

In a letter that spelled out its arrangement as “counsel and assistance” to Kroll, the law firm's duties are broadly said to include “other matters that . . . may require inquiry or investigation.”

The two complaints were filed in San Diego Superior Court and could be consolidated. One suit was filed on behalf of the city of San Diego and the other on behalf of California residents, although both basically seek the same results. Aguirre is demanding $29.2 million, a total that is triple the $9.7 million the city paid Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

Outside attorney Bryan Vess, who will work on a contingency basis, filed the lawsuits for Aguirre on Tuesday after Mayor Jerry Sanders and most City Council members had begun vacations timed with a monthlong August recess. Aguirre's office made them public yesterday in response to inquiries.

Councilwoman Toni Atkins was surprised by the filing and looked forward to hearing more about it in a briefing next month.

“I think the council would like to be part of the discussion,” Atkins said. “Which is not to say that we wouldn't agree with him, but we weren't given the chance.”

San Diego's legal bills began piling up after Aguirre was elected in 2004 on a vow to root out corruption at City Hall. Increasingly, the council has argued that it should authorize all of Aguirre's lawsuits because it controls spending, but Aguirre says as the lawyer for San Diego he can file suits as necessary.

Two suspects in a burglary and arson that left three people dead and rocked a suburban town last month faced a slew of charges Tuesday in a heavily secured courthouse.

Family members of the victims - the wife and daughters of a prominent doctor, who survived the attack - filled two rows in the packed courtroom. A man was escorted from the courtroom after he yelled "Killer!" as Joshua Komisarjevsky faced the judge. Otherwise, the brief hearing was quiet.

Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, did not enter pleas and spoke only to answer yes or no questions. Department of Corrections special operations team members wearing fatigues and heavy, black vests kept watch on the two.

The men have been held on $15 million bond since July 23, when they are accused of taking the family hostage, killing 48-year-old Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her two daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11.

The state medical examiner said Hawke-Petit, who was taken to a bank and forced to withdraw money during the ordeal, was strangled. The girls died from smoke inhalation after the family's suburban Cheshire home was set ablaze.

William Petit Jr. was badly beaten but managed to escape. He did not attend Tuesday's hearing.

Jeremiah Donovan, the attorney appointed to represent Komisarjevsky as a special public defender, acknowledged the challenge of working on such a high-profile case.

"I myself live with a beloved wife and two lovely daughters, but I'm going to defend Joshua with all the ability and all the vigor that I might have," he said.

Komisarjevsky and Hayes, who met in a halfway house and were on parole when the crime occurred, are charged with capital felony, kidnapping, sexual assault, assault, burglary, robbery, arson, larceny and risk of injury to children. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty.

The Protect America Act establishes legal guidelines on how the United States can conduct surveillance against foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States," and requires the director of national intelligence and the attorney general's authorization before surveillance against a specific target can begin. The surveillance will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 120 days.

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that, while the search itself was constitutional, FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.

"The review of the Congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the Executive" and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged."

The raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home.

Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa. The Justice Department said it built that case without using the disputed documents from the raid.

The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case.

"Today's opinion underscores the fact that the Department of Justice is required to follow the law, and that it is bound to abide by the Constitution," defense attorney Robert Trout, said, promising more legal challenges to "overreaching by the government in this case."

The Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the decision. Officials have said they took extraordinary steps, including using an FBI "filter team" not involved in the case to review the congressional documents. Government attorneys said the Constitution was not intended to shield lawmakers from prosecution for political corruption.

The court was not convinced. It said the Constitution insists that lawmakers must be free from any intrusion into their congressional duties. Such intrusion, even by a filter team, "may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity," the court held.

The case has cut across political party lines. Former House Speakers Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and Thomas Foley, a Democrat, filed legal documents opposing the raid, along with former House Minority Leader Bob Michel, a Republican.

Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid.

Following his indictment, Jefferson's supporters accused the Bush administration of targeting black Democrats to shift attention from the legal troubles of Republican congressmen.

"We are confident that as this case moves forward, and when all of the facts are known, we will prevail again and clear Congressman Jefferson's name," Trout said Friday.

Despite the looming investigation, Jefferson was re-elected to a ninth term in 2006. His win complicated things for Democratic leaders who promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and placed him instead on the Small Business Committee. He resigned that committee assignment after being indicted.

The case was considered by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers.