A 1991 law and court consent decree ordered that those suffering from diseases that are newly considered to be service-related could have their cases reconsidered and their back benefits paid. The VA, however, contended this didn't apply to diseases deemed service-related after the law's 2002 original sunset date.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson of San Francisco disagreed in 2005, and the appeals court affirmed his judgment Thursday with some harsh words for the VA.

"Three different Congresses in three different decades have enacted legislation signed by three different presidents, designed to ensure the payment of such benefits to veterans afflicted with Agent Orange-related ailments," Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for himself and circuit judges John Noonan and Milan Smith. "What is difficult for us to comprehend is why the Department of Veterans Affairs, having entered into a settlement agreement and agreed to a consent order some 16 years ago, continues to resist its implementation so vigorously, as well as to resist equally vigorously the payment of desperately needed benefits to Vietnam War veterans who fought for their country and suffered grievous injury as a result of our government's own conduct."

The still-suffering veterans deserve better care than they're getting, he added. "We would hope that this litigation will now end, that our government will now respect the legal obligations it undertook in the Consent Decree some 16 years ago, that obstructionist bureaucratic opposition will now cease, and that our veterans will finally receive the benefits to which they are morally and legally entitled."

VA spokeswoman Laurie Tranter said the department won't comment until it more fully reviews the ruling.

Vietnam Veterans of America was one of the plaintiffs, and Rick Weidman, the group's executive director for policy and government affairs, called Thursday's ruling "a great victory for veterans."

"The court ... clearly is as incredulous as we are at the breathtaking attitude on the part of the VA in continuing to refuse to carry out the consent decree that they agreed to," Weidman said. "It's time for the VA to move forward and carry out the consent decree tout de suite, as soon as possible, with no further delay, no further nonsense."

If it doesn't, he said, the courts should hold individual VA officials in contempt of court and punish them with fines or jail time.

Mr. Morford was named as a temporary deputy, but officials said he was likely to be named as the official candidate for the job after background checks are completed. He would succeed Paul J. McNulty, who is preparing to leave next month.

In the Justice Department, Mr. Morford has earned a reputation for successfully handling difficult assignments with a deft, aggressive style. As a prosecutor in Cleveland, he led the government team that won a conviction in the 2002 corruption trial of James Traficant Jr., a former Democratic representative from Ohio who was sentenced to more than eight years in prison.

In 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Mr. Morford to lead an internal investigation into misconduct by federal prosecutors in Detroit, an inquiry that caused the government to ask a federal judge to throw out terrorism verdicts against two men convicted of operating a sleeper cell. Mr. Morford went to Nashville last year.

In announcing the appointment, Mr. Gonzales said in a statement: "With 20 years of experience as a Justice Department prosecutor, I am pleased to have a person of Mr. Morford’s exemplary character and integrity in this critical position at this time."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who has been scathingly critical of Mr. Gonzales, said the appointment was a positive step. "Mr. Morford starts out with one thing going for him: He’s a career prosecutor and not a politician," said Mr. Schumer, who has led the Senate investigation of the dismissals. "We’ll be watching closely to make sure that the rule of law comes first and foremost under his watch."

A Superior Court judge on Friday signed a judgment that awarded $216,837 along with $39,177 in interest to the Torrance firm of Ayscough & Marar, according to court records.

Jackson’s attorney, Marshall Brubacher, agreed in principle to the judgment on July 26, when he told the judge that going to trial would be costlier and “we want to stop the hemorrhaging.”

The law firm sued Jackson for failing to pay legal fees for preventing the release of some information to the public and to lawyers in civil cases during Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial in Santa Barbara County.

Jackson was eventually acquitted of child molestation charges.

Jackson countersued the law firm but that case was dismissed.

Ayscough & Marar also helped defend Jackson against a lawsuit that claimed the pop star owed $1.4 million to his former business associated, Marc Schaffel.

Last year, a jury awarded Schaffel $900,000 and awarded Jackson $200,000 in a countersuit against Schaffel.

Montreal consumer Olivier Dumoulin started a class-action lawsuit against Dell, arguing that the company wouldn't honour Axim sales made on its Canadian website, before the erroneous prices of $89 and $118 were rectified. The real prices were $379 and $549 respectively.

At issue for the Supreme Court is a caveat used by Dell and a growing number of retailers on the sale of everything from computers to cellphones.

It's a clause that obliges dissatisfied customers to challenge companies through arbitration - and not class-action lawsuits.

"This clause for us is abusive. Its goal is to block class-action lawsuits," said Charles Tanguay, a spokesperson for Quebec's Union des consommateurs, which is spearheading the case with Dumoulin. "What we're defending here is a principle. When a price is advertised, it must be sold at that price."

In 2004, the Quebec Superior Court granted the union and Dumoulin class-action certification.

Each member of the class is asking for Dell to supply the Axim at the transaction price, plus compensatory damages of $100 and punitive damages of $1,000, court papers show.

A lawyer for Dell couldn't be reached for comment yesterday.

Dell's appeal of the Superior Court's decision has broad implications for most Canadian provinces. While such arbitration clauses are no longer permitted in Quebec - their use is also forbidden in Ontario - Friday's decision would set the standard for retailers in other provinces, legal experts say.

"There's a big trend of retailers favouring arbitration clauses," said Frederic Bachand, a McGill University law professor.

Bachand was part of a team of lawyers representing a neutral intervenor in the Dell case.

While the trend is more limited in Canada, Bachand estimates that these clauses are used in more than half of U.S. consumer contracts - or purchases of goods and services.

Arbitration is advantageous for big business because it's done privately - sparing companies potentially negative publicity - and usually less costly, he said.

Some arbitration clauses also force customers to challenge a company as individuals, which could dissuade customers from taking action because of fees.

"What the big-business side is trying to do is to force the consumer to go to individual arbitration," he said. "We've seen some cases that are obviously abusive, where companies are trying to shift the cost (of arbitration) to the consumer."

Dell wasn't trying to gouge customers on fees, Bachand said.

Along with the Dell case, the Supreme Court is also expected to decide on a similar lawsuit involving Rogers Wireless.

A Quebec customer trying to launch a class-action lawsuit against Rogers for high mobile fees was also told he had to go to arbitration instead of court.

"Of course, this is the worst possible development," a law professor at New York University, Stephen Gillers, said. "It bodes ill for Partners A & B," the professor said, using the pseudonyms prosecutors have adopted to refer to Messrs. Weiss and Lerach in court proceedings. "Each of them is clearly in the prosecutors' sights," Mr. Gillers said. With Bershad's testimony, prosecutors "may now have the ability to pull the trigger" and obtain an indictment of the two men, Mr. Gillers said.

"It seems pretty damning to me," another professor who has been following the case, Larry Ribstein of the University of Illinois, said. "They are facing a trial or pretty hard time, if all this pans out."

Messrs. Weiss and Lerach have not been charged with any crime. However, in recent weeks, the pair has been in plea discussions with federal prosecutors, a lawyer involved in the case said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Weiss's attorney, Benjamin Brafman, declined to comment on the development. Mr. Lerach's lawyer, John Keker, did not respond to a message seeking comment for this article.

Bershad could receive up to five years in prison on the conspiracy count. Prosecutors and Bershad's lawyers agreed that sentencing guidelines call for 18 months to two years in his case, though Judge Walter is not obligated to follow that recommendation. Bershad also agreed to forfeit $7.75 million of his receipts from the various lawsuits and to pay a $250,000 fine.

At yesterday's hearing, Bershad and one of his lawyers, Cristina Arguedas, stood at a lectern as a prosecutor, Richard Robinson, outlined the facts the government would seek to prove if Bershad went to trial. For 15 minutes, the prosecutor described the scheme by which Milberg Weiss used secretly paid plaintiffs to win the race to be first to file securities lawsuits.

"Generally, these individuals were promised that they would be paid approximately 10% of the net attorneys' fees that Milberg Weiss obtained," Mr. Robinson said. This gave Milberg Weiss an advantage because plaintiffs' firms that filed first were likely to be named as lead counsel and to enjoy a larger share of attorneys fees when cases were settled, he said. In 1995, Congress changed the laws related to class actions, and first-to-file status became less critical.

In one of the case's most eye-catching allegations, Mr. Robinson said Bershad kept in his office a stash of cash contributed by Milberg Weiss partners. The prosecutor said this became a "secret payment fund" used to make off-the-books distributions to plaintiffs, who were expected to take less than the customary 10% if they were paid in cash.

Mr. Robinson said Partner A, Mr. Weiss, made at least one payment from the fund, and Partner B, Mr. Lerach, sought reimbursement for a cash payment to a plaintiff. The prosecutor said Partner A also used a "phony option," which court papers indicate related to an artwork, to pay $175,000 owed to one plaintiff involved in the scheme.

“We believe the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) reached erroneous conclusions that could have been corrected by seeking clarification from Orrick before LCB published its audit report,” said the letter from James Houpt.

But the letter went on to say that the law firm considers Nevada to be a valuable client, and the firm's “intent is not to risk that relationship.”

State Treasurer Kate Marshall said the check already has been deposited in a state bank account.

“They respectfully disagreed with the audit, but they also felt it was the right decision for them to make the overpayment identified in the audit,” Marshall told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “The state of Nevada is a little over $95,000 better off for it.”

As a result of the audit of the college savings program while under the review of then-Treasurer Brian Krolicki, Marshall sent a letter to the firm seeking a response.

Orrick had served as bond counsel to the state at the time the services were rendered for the program. The contract allowed the firm to provide legal services to other state agencies as well. The firm currently does not have any contract to serve as bond counsel with the state.

The treasurer's office is awaiting a response from another firm that did business with the state for the college savings program on a separate issue raised in the audit.

A Georgia consulting firm, GIF Services, was overpaid $300,000, according to the audit released in May.

The audit was sought by legislators after Marshall said in March that it appeared funds for the program were diverted for unauthorized legal expenditures and marketing costs.

The audit also raised the issue of whether Krolicki broke state law by not depositing $6 million in state-earned fees into the state treasury. The audit has been turned over to the attorney general's office for an investigation.

Krolocki, now lieutenant governor, has said he broke no laws in his management of the program during his eight years as treasurer.

The program was established by the 2001 Legislature to allow parents to invest money in mutual funds to build up college funds for their children.

None of the money that parents invested is missing or ended up in an improper account, according to the audit.