In an article written by Denise Gellene and Thomas H. Maugh II of the Los Angeles Times report that Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff of Emory University failed to report a third of the income he received from companies whose drugs he was evaluating.

Dr. Nemeroff is a prominent Emory University psychiatrist who received at least $2.8 million in consulting fees from companies whose drugs he was evaluating and failed to report a third of it, congressional investigators studying medical conflicts of interest said Friday.

The allegations against Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, the latest in a series of such charges, are the most striking to emerge from the probe, which seems likely to alter the cozy relationships between prominent academics and the drug industry.

Nemeroff received the money from GlaxoSmithKline between 2000 and 2007 while he was the principal investigator on a $3.9-million National Institutes of Health study of five Glaxo drugs for treatment of depression.

Nemeroff continued to receive large amounts of money for delivering talks to other physicians even after he signed university documents pledging to accept no more than $10,000 a year from any one company, the inquiry found.

Responding to the allegations, Nemeroff voluntarily stepped down as chairman of the psychiatry department at Emory on Friday pending a resolution of the matter.

Frankly, is his misbehavior should have caused Emory to ask for his complete resignation.

A university statement quoted him as saying, “To the best of my knowledge, I have followed the appropriate university regulations concerning financial disclosures.”

Nemeroff is at least the sixth psychiatrist identified with such conflicts since this spring, when the congressional investigation began.

Experts added, however, that the problems extend throughout the profession.

The findings are beginning to have repercussions.

At least two companies, Eli Lilly & Co. and Merck & Co., have said they will begin making such disclosures of all payments over $500 made to physicians next year.

At issue is the safety and efficacy of the stream of new drugs undergoing clinical trials. Several studies have shown that researchers who receive money from drug companies are more likely to report positive results from such trials.

A magazine long known for rating cars and washing machines is branching out to hospitals, encouraging people to shop around for ones that provide "conservative" instead of "aggressive" care.

Relying on data already compiled by researchers at Dartmouth College, the service launched by Consumer Reports on Thursday uses a simple, if counterintuitive, yardstick:

For older people struggling with chronic diseases, too much medical care can be dangerous, said Dr. John Santa, director of Consumer Reports’ new Health Ratings Center.

"Aggressive" hospitals keep people with chronic diseases hospitalized more days during the last two years of their lives. And doctors affiliated with aggressive hospitals see chronically ill patients more often.

"Conservative" hospitals provide the fewest doctor’s visits and shortest hospitalizations in those final years of life.

For older people with conditions such as congestive heart failure, cancer, dementia or diabetes with organ damage, the yardstick can be useful in deciding whether a hospital’s treatment style matches their needs.

The Health Ratings Center joins an expanding array of rankings, grades and evaluations that compare hospitals or doctors. Some are buried in government reports, while others are assembled by nonprofit groups, consumers or businesses.

Many liberals claim that the military justice system is broken and that the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military’s criminal code, has failed or that the United States pay lip service to the law of war while disregarding it in fact.

The first response is "Hogwash." Remember that war crime charges involve very few of the many thousands of heroic U.S. war fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also that being charged does not necessarily mean one is guilty. (Duh) The Uniform Code of Military Justice has proved itself in peace and combat, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, undeniably, there are problems in prosecuting war crimes.

Although the code works well, the law of war — the part of international law that regulates armed hostilities — does not. The wonder is that it works at all. Some war crimes go unreported. After the Abu Ghraib scandal, greater attention is now given to enforcing the law of war, which partly explains the greater number of media accounts of criminality. Our military is not riddled with criminals. Rather, commanders are paying closer attention to possible war crimes and, as required by military law, they are investigating and reporting them.

In Haditha, after an improvised explosive device killed a popular Marine, 24 Iraqi noncombatants were killed. The Marine battalion commander denied the possibility of his men’s criminality and failed to make sufficient inquiry into their actions, multiple investigations allege. Time magazine backed this up, and Marine headquarters cast a wide net in charging those possibly involved, including senior officers who may have inadequately investigated. The division commander, a two-star general, has been administratively punished.

After a shaky start in Iraq, military justice is working. Three soldiers involved in the rape-murder-burning of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl were court-martialed and sentenced to 90, 100 and 110 years confinement. Problems remain, but find a system without problems. Over time, our military’s courtroom record is good.

Oakland lawyer Jon Eisenberg calls the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. George W. Bush the strangest he has ever handled. How strange? Eisenberg was required to write one of his briefs in a windowless government office, without notes or lawbooks, under the watchful eye of two federal security guards.

When he got hungry, one of the guards brought him a banana. And when he finished, a security official shredded all his drafts — and even the banana peel, Eisenberg said.

The brief-writing session was just one facet of the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the Al-Haramain case, Eisenberg said. Al-Haramain is one of dozens of plaintiffs across the nation that have filed suit, claiming they were illegally spied on by the government as part of the war on terror.

In most of the cases, including Al-Haramain’s, the government has contended that any disclosure about the surveillance program would reveal state secrets and has refused to say whether the plaintiffs were wire-tapped. It has then moved to dismiss the complaints.

But in the Al-Haramain case, the Treasury Department inadvertently disclosed National Security Agency call logs stamped "top secret" indicating that the charity and two of its attorneys had been surveilled. Last year, U.S. District Judge Garr King ruled that the logs — referred to in the court papers as "The Document" — gave the charity standing to sue in federal court.

Today, Eisenberg and Justice Department lawyer Thomas Bondy will each have 20 minutes to argue over King’s decision before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the argument will be conducted in public, much of the information in the case, including what was in "the Document," remains veiled in mystery.

Many of the government’s motions have been filed under seal, and those lodged publicly contain gaps; one government brief reads: "REDACTED TEXT. PUBLIC TEXT CONTINUES ON PAGE 6."

Some of Eisenberg’s briefs have been redacted as well, because they are considered too sensitive for the public to see. But although Justice Department lawyers can see Eisenberg’s redactions, he isn’t allowed to see theirs.

In the Al-Haramain case, Eisenberg has had to respond to a government filing he was not allowed to see.

Asked Monday if there was any way, under the government’s interpretation of the law, that someone could contest the surveillance program, a senior Justice Department official replied, "In the current context, no."

Georgetown University constitutional law professor David Cole, who is not involved in this case but has represented individuals in similar situations, said the Al-Haramain case presented a daunting undertaking for a lawyer — and a threat to the rule of law.

Up until last month, there didn’t seem to be a TV camera that attorney Debra Opri wouldn’t embrace.

The brash, self-professed blue-collar gal from New Jersey had secured a costarring role in the Anna Nicole Smith media circus as the attorney waging war to prove that Larry Birkhead was in fact the father of the now-deceased Playboy bombshell’s baby girl.

Her hair long, dark and stick-straight, the 47-year-old hovered perennially at Birkhead’s side, always ready to hit the Larry King-Bill O’Reilly talk-show circuit on his behalf, always filled with snappy quotes for reporters. Before Smith died, Opri routinely chastised the buxom blond from myriad courthouse steps. "Where’s this woman’s decency? Where’s her fairness?" a righteous Opri asked.

Now, her former star client is asking the same question about Opri.

In March the two acrimoniously parted ways, and in June, Birkhead sued her for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice. He also filed a complaint with the California Bar Assn., which is investigating. Two weeks ago, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles C. Lee gave Birkhead his first victory in what is expected to be a long skirmish — granting his request that $591,250 of Birkhead’s money Opri had sequestered in her attorney-client trust account be transferred into a separate blocked account, that could be touched only by court order.

While it’s unclear how the case will end, Birkhead’s allegations have the potential to seriously dent Opri’s once-promising career as the next Greta Van Susteren or Nancy Grace, one of those tough-talking, camera-ready legal eagles on call to opine about the day’s courthouse skirmish. To journalist and author Diane Dimond, who first noticed Opri at the second Michael Jackson trial, Opri was at the vanguard of a "disturbing trend of attorneys that began to show up at high-profile trials like Scott Peterson, Robert Blake and Michael Jackson." Lawyers, Dimond explains, who essentially show up for the cameras to "get face time." With law and celebrity increasingly intertwined in a tabloid and 24-hour-news-dominated culture, the matter of Birkhead vs. Opri is more than just a nasty spat. It’s also a revealing excursion into a high-stakes world where punditry and legal representation can collide and where six-figure deals between newsmakers and the media are part of the game.

Opri got her start in this rarefied corner of the law by working for the late singer James Brown and then the parents of Michael Jackson. She made a splash giving interviews during Jackson’s molestation trial. Her career, her detractors say, is a vivid case study of how lawyers can push their way into the media circus and sometimes profit from their exertions.

Birkhead’s claims raise questions of whether she ran roughshod over her client’s interest in a quest to rack up airtime and legal bills. His suit isn’t her only problem. Opri represented actress Pamela Bach in her legal faceoff in court against her erstwhile husband, "Baywatch" star David Hasselhoff. Last month, Bach fired Opri after she lost full custody of her two daughters.

Meanwhile, Hasselhoff’s lawyers have filed a motion in Superior Court to get her financial records to determine the exact sum — believed by his lawyers to be hundreds of thousands of dollars — that Bach and/or Opri allegedly received in connection with the sale to the media of the infamous video of a drunken Hasselhoff. Opri denies having anything to do with the video.

She also adamantly disputes Birkhead’s accusations and has brought on Sitrick and Co., the crisis P.R. firm, to help her quell the stirring controversy.

She believes that Birkhead was behind the leaking of her legal bill to him, which totaled $620,492, and included items such as a lobster barbecue, thousand of dollars’ worth of limo rides and $1,500 a month for her publicist. According to her legal bill placed in the court file, she routinely charged Birkhead about $119 per e-mail, not to mention the over $96,000 she billed him for her time on cellphone calls.

"The bill in and of itself is not outrageous," she said. "This is a bill he doesn’t want to pay on any level. I never agreed to work pro bono. I don’t work for free," she said repeatedly, responding to one of Birkhead’s claims. "I just don’t. I can’t afford it."

His side of the story

FOR his part, Birkhead said he’s paid the Florida and Bahamian attorneys who worked on his case. "Their fees were reasonable. I was not supposed to be charged by [Opri], and she took money she wasn’t supposed to take," said the photographer in an interview last week in the Valley, accompanied by his lawyer, M.L. Trope. Birkhead characterizes his relationship with Opri as a bad marriage that he’s had trouble shaking.

Over lunch, Birkhead outlined and detailed many of the allegations made in his court papers, which include three long sworn affidavits from him. Opri disputes almost everything Birkhead claims, but her court affidavit is a one-page document that merely states that he signed a legal retainer with her.

Birkhead said he first heard about Opri when MSNBC reporter Rita Cosby tracked him down in 2006 in a New York hotel room to try to get an interview. Birkhead said he didn’t know Cosby, but as his legal complaint lays out, he claims the reporter told him she knew an attorney — Opri — who wanted his case and would do it for free. In an interview, Cosby, who’s had Opri on her show numerous times, said it was Birkhead who solicited her advice about legal representation, and so she mentioned Opri among several names. She had no idea of the financial arrangement between the duo.

According to Birkhead, he’d been contacted by a number of attorneys offering their services pro bono; he’d interviewed others who’d asked for retainers ranging from $40,000 to $100,000. Yet none played on his emotions the way Opri did. Smith was planning to marry attorney Howard K. Stern, and Birkhead says Opri told him he was in danger of losing his child if he didn’t sign up with her immediately. Opri denies saying any such thing.

That night, he appeared on Van Susteren’s show and off camera asked the anchor her opinion of Opri. "He said that Opri was going to charge him nothing because she was going to get a lot of publicity out of it equal to her fee," Van Susteren recalled. "I said, ‘You can’t beat that.’ "

Birkhead flew back to his home in California the next day; by the time his flight was taxiing to the gate, Birkhead said that Opri had called him multiple times. She offered to send a limo for him, but he declined. When he arrived at her office, "she’s walking around like a maniac. She’s pacing," recalled Birkhead, who asked her if family law was her expertise. She told him she had years of experience.

According to Birkhead, she then proceeded to "take these papers, and like a deck of cards, she flings them on the desk." She rattled off what they were: a paternity action, a suit against Stern, another against Smith for palimony. Birkhead, who’d lived with Smith, didn’t want to file a palimony claim. She threw in a media agreement that entitled her to 10% of any of his earnings if he sold his story. He told her he wouldn’t write a book or do "anything sleazy." According to Birkhead, she told him that he was going to be rich and that she’d already lined up agents for him.

Four police officers from South Gate, California, all minorities, who claimed they were harassed on the job because of their ties to two controversial and eventually ousted Latino city officials won a $10.4-million jury award Thursday.

The award is believed to be one of the largest ever in a police employment discrimination case and represents another setback for the controversy-plagued, working-class community in southeastern Los Angeles County.

The officers said they were threatened and undermined in trying to carry out their duties by some supervisors, most of whom were white, and by other officers. The plaintiffs said the illegal harassment was linked to their association with Rick Lopez — a previous acting police chief and the first Latino to head the department — as well as with since-disgraced former city Treasurer Albert Robles.

The lawyer for the four plaintiffs — three of whom still work for the South Gate Police Department — said the jury award essentially proved exactly what the officers have claimed all along.

But representatives of South Gate countered that the officers’ allegations mainly dated from 2002-03, when the city was roiled by a recall election campaign. They said the Police Department’s employment practices have since been revamped, leading to more hiring and promotions of minorities.

The lawyer for the city, said he expects to file follow-up motions or an appeal challenging the award by the Los Angeles Superior Court jury.

The case evoked memories of past controversies that led to the ouster of four City Councilmen in a January 2003 recall election. More recently, in November, the former city treasurer was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison for plundering more than $20 million from city coffers.

The acting police chief was ousted shortly after the recall election. The departure came amid complaints about his $120,000 annual salary and other compensation, along with allegations — which the chief denied — that he broke the law by campaigning against the recall while in uniform. He was never charged.

The biggest part of the jury award, more than $4 million, went to one Officer who claimed his life has been endangered because other officers have turned down his emergency calls for backup help.

The lawsuit, brought in 2005, also charged that some members of the Police Department targeted the plaintiffs and other officers by posting a threatening, one-page leaflet around department headquarters.

Among other things, the document said officers who sided with the plaintiffs should "look over your shoulder. Until you leave this organization, you never know what can happen in this violent world in which we live." In addition, the document said, "Here’s our deal. We know who you are. We will deal with you when we finish taking out the most putrid of trash first."

The issue of ethnicity appeared to enter the jury’s decision only indirectly as the jury found that none of the plaintiffs was subjected to harassment or discrimination because of his race.
 
But the panel did find that they were harassed and discriminated against because of the race or national origin of people the officers were associated with. This was the second multimillion-dollar jury award the attorney has won against the city of South Gate.Last year, a jury awarded his client, a former assistant police chief, $4.2 million in a lawsuit claiming retaliation. The city is challenging that decision.