What makes the potential departure of Mr. Lerach particularly shocking is that it would come just as he is engaged in his most high-profile case to date: the shareholder lawsuit against the Wall Street banks that acted as advisers to Enron before it collapsed into bankruptcy in 2001.

While Mr. Lerach has recovered $7.3 billion for shareholders, a federal appeals panel recently ruled that the lawsuit against the remaining defendant banks could not go forward. Since then, Mr. Lerach has been leading a campaign to have the case reviewed by the United States Supreme Court, publicly pressuring and lobbying the Securities and Exchange Commission and its chairman, Christopher Cox, to support his efforts by filing a friend of the court brief in the case.

Still, people who have been briefed on the criminal investigation suggested that Mr. Lerach’s lawyer, John W. Keker, might be trying to make federal prosecutors an offer: Mr. Lerach would resign from the firm in exchange for the firm’s not being indicted.

Calls to Mr. Keker were not returned. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles, which is leading the investigation into illegal payments to plaintiffs, also declined to comment.

When reached on his cellphone Wednesday evening, Mr. Lerach declined to comment on his status at the firm. “I can’t say anything,” he said. Calls made later to his cellphone were not returned, and several calls made to a spokesman for the firm were not returned.

Going quietly into the night would also be a reversal in style for Mr. Lerach.

Boisterous and with a penchant for grandstanding, Mr. Lerach has a long history of being both feared and loathed inside the boardrooms of corporations and insurance companies.

For decades, until Mr. Lerach broke off to start his own firm in 2004, he and his former partner, Melvyn I. Weiss, tackled what they saw as rampant corporate malfeasance, securing rich settlements for shareholders and earning themselves and their firms hundreds of millions of dollars in fees in the process.

But nearly seven years ago, federal prosecutors began examining some of the tactics that had made the firm so powerful. As a result, the New York law firm Milberg Weiss & Bershad and two partners, David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman, were indicted last year, accused of making more than $11 million in secret payments to individuals who served as plaintiffs in more than 150 lawsuits that earned the firm more than $216 million in fees.

Although they were the main targets of the investigation, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Lerach were not indicted, and the government’s case in recent months appeared to have stagnated. Yesterday, lawyers for Mr. Schulman filed a motion to dismiss all charges against him. Some attributed the renewed momentum in the investigation to talks between Mr. Bershad, who is on a leave of absence from the firm, and prosecutors that might result in a guilty plea for his role in what prosecutors have described as a scheme to pay illegal kickbacks to class-action clients, according to another person briefed on the investigation.

It is unclear whether Mr. Bershad will ultimately cooperate with the government in exchange for a lighter sentence.

His lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, declined to comment. A spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in Los Angeles also declined to comment.

Prosecutors and former partners have said that he handled and kept track of the payments to clients. Concern that Mr. Bershad may try to provide information to prosecutors that could strengthen their case against Milberg Weiss prompted at least two of its partners, Ariana J. Tadler and Brad N. Friedman, to meet with prosecutors in Los Angeles in an attempt to reach a deal that does not require the firm to acknowledge any wrongdoing, according to the person briefed on the case.

Calls to Ms. Tadler and Mr. Friedman were not returned.

Milberg Weiss said in a statement: “We have heard reports that David J. Bershad apparently plans to plead guilty to some of the charges that have been asserted against him. We believed his prior statements to us that he had done nothing wrong and committed no crime. We intend to take steps necessary to protect the interests of our clients and of the many uninvolved firm lawyers and staff who have demonstrated their dedication to the firm in carrying out the important work we do on behalf of investors and consumers.”

Mr. Weiss’s lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, said: “Mr. Weiss has not been charged with any criminal conduct whatsoever. He fully intends to continue practicing law and will continue to offer his clients the same extraordinary legal representation that he has provided for the past 40 years while at the same time continuing the wonderful philanthropic work that he has been devoted to for his entire life.”

While it would be unusual for the government to accept a deal in which Mr. Lerach retired from his firm, it was certainly not impossible, lawyers said.

“I have been involved in many cases where we have had nonstandard results. So is it possible? The answer is yes,” said Sean O’Shea, a criminal defense lawyer in New York who is not involved in Mr. Lerach’s case.

The government’s investigation into the tactics of the plaintiffs’ lawyers began in the late 1990s when a Beverly Hills ophthalmologist, Steven G. Cooperman, who had been convicted of art insurance fraud charges, offered to provide evidence against Milberg Weiss in exchange for a reduced sentence about his role as a frequent plaintiff in shareholder lawsuits filed by the firm.

Over the next few years, prosecutors combed through decades of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses.

According to the charges, the scheme involving the paid plaintiffs worked like this: Plaintiffs would buy securities anticipating that they would decline in value, hence positioning themselves to be named plaintiffs in the class actions. After the court in a lawsuit awarded lawyers’ fees, the firm and Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman gave cash directly to the plaintiffs or to intermediary lawyers. The firm then falsely accounted for the payments as referral fees or professional fees, the indictment said.

Under New York law, it is illegal for a lawyer to promise or give anything to induce a person to bring a lawsuit or to reward a person for having done so, the indictment said.

The 20-count indictment against Milberg Weiss and Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman accused them of conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Lawyers for the firm, Mr. Bershad and Mr. Schulman have denied the charges.

The indictment, however, has hurt Milberg Weiss’s business. The firm has lost several institutional clients, its position in large cases, and had several major lawyers depart the firm.

US immigration courts are inconsistent in granting asylum to applicants, according to a new study by three law professors to be published in the Stanford Law Review. The professors found that factors that contributed to the outcome of applications for asylum include the location of the court, the background of the judge, and the nationality of the applicant.

For example, a person who has fled China has a 76 percent chance of winning their asylum case in the Orlando immigration court, but only a 7 percent chance in Atlanta. The New York Times Thursday quoted co-author Philip G. Schrag of Georgetown University Law Center as saying he found the results "very disturbing" especially because often "these decisions can mean life or death" for the applicant, and the study suggests that the random assignment to a particular judge may be outcome determinative.

In February, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (CIRF) reported that the practice of expedited removal is causing the claims of some legitimate asylum seekers to be ignored. The latest draft legislation on immigration reform does little to change the asylum process, although it could begin the road to citizenship for up to 12 million illegal immigrants in the US.

An unusual vote on an issue perceived by many to be intensely political has once again sparked controversy over who the District 209 Board of Education turns to for legal advice.

During its regular monthly meeting on May 21, the board voted to dump the law firm Odelson and Sterk, and instead, retain the services of Giglio and Del Galdo. Both firms have donated bundles of cash to campaign efforts by board President Chris Welch and Melrose Park Mayor Ron Serpico, a major backer of Welch and Welch's political ally, Cook County Recorder of Deeds Eugene Moore.

Aside from the tangled web of political connections, the method by which Giglio and Del Galdo was hired is causing rumblings, as well. When the motion to hire the firm was made, it failed in a tie vote with board Secretary Sue Henry abstaining. After moving on to other business and without holding any further public discussion on the issue, Welch announced that Henry and another board member had changed their vote, thus awarding the district's business to Giglio and Del Galdo.

The vote to dismiss the law firm of Odelson and Sterk was taken prior to deciding whether to retain Giglio and Del Galdo. Both Henry and school board newcomer Robin Foreman said they changed their votes after realizing the district was left without a law firm to represent its interests.

Henry, an employee of Moore's at the county office, didn't explain specifically why she initially abstained.

"I just felt pushed at the time the vote was going down," Henry said.

Robert Cox, a newly elected board member from Forest Park, voted to bring in the new legal firm largely out of fiscal concerns, he said. Based on information provided by the superintendent, Cox said he understood that Odelson and Sterk was attempting to bilk the district out of money.

"Basically, they were billing for services that weren't requested but were being handed down," Cox said.

Superintendent Stan Fields declined to comment on the bills received by Odelson and Sterk, but said that changing law firms was a "business decision" in an effort to get a better value.

"During my nine month tenure I came to the conclusion that the school district would be better served with a different general counsel," Fields said.

A phone call to a managing partner in the law firm, Burt Odelson, was not returned.

Dating back to 1999, Burt Odelson and his managing partner Mark Sterk, have donated more than $19,700 to Proviso's school board president and his political allies, according to campaign filing records maintained by the state.

District 209's Director of Auxiliary Programs Kyle Hastings has taken in more than $14,000 in campaign money from the firm, according to the same state records. Hastings is also the mayor of Orland Hills.

Though less prolific, the managing partners of Giglio and Del Galdo have also been generous with area politicos. Since 2002, Joseph Giglio and Michael Del Galdo have given $19,500 to Serpico's campaign efforts and $1,500 to Welch. Illinois campaign disclosure records indicate the firm has given no money to Moore, the county recorder of deeds.

Welch, the school board president, did not return several phone calls seeking comment.

A little more than one year ago, the District 209 board wrestled with this very proposal, though no vote was taken at the time. At that meeting in April of 2006, board members accused one another of playing politics. In 2006, board member Charles Flowers said he had reservations with both law firms.

"I was all for firing (Odelson and Sterk), but I certainly wasn't interested in bringing in more crooked people," Flowers said after last year's debacle.

At the May 21 board meeting, Flowers voted to dismiss Odelson and Sterk, and then voted against hiring Giglio and Del Galdo. After board members Foreman and Henry reversed their original votes on whether to hire the new firm, Flowers was joined only by Theresa Kelly in the minority.

The US Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility has expanded its investigation into whether department aides illegally made hiring decisions based on consideration of applicants' political beliefs, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday. The move follows Wednesday's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee by former DOJ aide Monica Goodling, where she admitted making hiring decisions based on political party affiliation. The DOJ also said that it found no evidence to support Goodling's claim that the practice was approved by officials in the department.

Goodling was testifying about her role in the firings of eight US Attorneys. She disputed testimony by resigning Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and claimed that at least one US Attorney was fired to open a spot for a protege of Karl Rove.

The breach prompted immediate speculation about cracks in what has until now been a remarkably united movement.

In their ad, the leaders of the four anti-abortion groups say Mr Dobson was wrong to see last April's supreme court decision as a victory. The verdict banned a particular procedure for terminations later in pregnancy, which the anti-abortion movement has labeled "partial birth abortions".

The campaign against that particular procedure has been a rallying point in the anti-abortion movement. Last month's decision was also seen as an indication of a shift to the right on the supreme court following two appointments by President Bush. Opponents of abortion now believe it could soon be possible to overturn the decision legalizing abortion.

However, yesterday's ad argues that the ban on late abortions will not reduce terminations. Instead, the ad says the ban will simply encourage doctors to find other methods for such terminations.

"Dr Dobson, you mislead Christians claiming this ruling will 'protect children.' The court granted no authority to save the life of even a single child," the ad said. It also called on Mr Dobson to repent.

Kentucky's lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court. "The outcome ... has broad implications for the municipal bond market at large, far beyond Kentucky's borders," John R. Farris, Kentucky's secretary of finance, said in a written statement.

If the justices uphold the Kentucky court's ruling, states that exempt their bonds while taxing those from other states would either have to tax municipal bonds from all states equally or exempt all bonds in order to come into compliance, several legal experts said.

But based on a separate Supreme Court decision last month involving interstate commerce, which ruled in favor of local governments in New York, many observers think the Court is likely to overrule the Kentucky decision and maintain the status quo.

By exempting municipal bonds from state taxes, governments can offer in-state investors lower interest rates and as a result lower their cost of borrowing. Muni bonds, which are used to fund roads, schools and other public projects, are also exempt from federal taxes.

The bonds can be particularly appealing to investors from high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts. There are hundreds of mutual funds comprised of muni bonds from single states, with over $160 billion in assets, bond analysts said.

State and local governments issued approximately $400 billion in municipal bonds in 2006, one bond analyst said.

Like Kentucky, more than 40 states exempt at least some of their in-state bonds from taxation, the National Association of State Treasurers said in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Kentucky's policy was challenged by George and Catherine Davis, who argued it is unconstitutional and requested a refund of the taxes they paid on out-of-state muni bonds.

If the Davises prevail at the high court, Kentucky and the other states could be forced to pay those refunds, said Alan Viard, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

The case could also impact the Section 529 college savings plans offered by many states, said Leonard Weiser-Varon, a public finance expert at the Mintz Levin law firm in Boston.

Bond fund managers downplayed the issue. Tom Metzold, a vice president and portfolio manager at Eaton Vance Corp., said that a ruling against the states could result in a one-time reduction in the value of muni bonds. Otherwise, "it will be much ado about nothing," he said.

Ronald Fielding, who manages the municipal bond funds group at Oppenheimer Funds, estimated that investors who own bonds from high-tax states could see the value of their portfolios decline by 1.5 percent to 2 percent if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Davises.

But many legal experts think the justices are likely to rule in favor of Kentucky instead. Last month, the justices found that local governments in New York could compel private trash haulers to use government-owned facilities, even if it would be cheaper to dispose of it at out-of-state dumps.

Gregory Germain, an associate professor at the Syracuse University College of Law, said that ruling carved out "a very broad exemption" to the commerce clause for laws that may discriminate against interstate commerce but favor a government entity.

The case is Kentucky v. Davis, 06-666. It won't be argued until the Court's next term, which begins in October.

At issue in the case is how the General Assembly passed the law and whether it was constitutional.

North Carolina law requires votes on separate days for laws that lead to higher taxes or borrow against the state's credit.

Attorneys for the state have argued that the lottery law does neither and that both chambers' votes were legal. (In April 2005, the House approved the lottery bill by a vote of 61-59. In August of the same year, the Senate needed a tie-breaking vote from Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue for the measure to pass 25-24.)

The bigger question, however, for appeals court judges Tuesday was what happens if the lottery, which recently reached the $1 billion sales mark, is ruled unconstitutional -- specifically, what would happen to all the money already rewarded.

Attorneys for the plaintiff, however, said they were only seeking to change the future of the lottery law and wasn't interested in lottery winnings since the lottery launched in March 2006.