Available online from law.com: Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal reports that “High Court Considers Restrictions on Attorneys Giving Bankruptcy Advice.”

In other news, “Calif. Supreme Court Shields Information in Opinion Letters; Also on Monday, the court clarifies the limits on punitive damages in a wrongful discharge case against McKesson.”

And an article reports that “Vaccine Cases Spark Interest — and an Unusual Move by Plaintiffs.”

“Workman: Massey employed ‘extensive pattern of fraudulent conduct’; Justice was lone dissenter in 4-1 ruling against Harman Mining.” Today in The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette, Paul J. Nyden has an article that begins, “West Virginia State Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman cited Massey Energy’s ‘extensive pattern of fraudulent conduct’ in a strongly worded dissent released Monday in a case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Justice criticizes W.Va. court’s Massey ruling.”

You can access the dissenting opinion, issued yesterday, at this link.

My earlier coverage of the majority opinion, which issued earlier last month, can be accessed here.

“Democratic judge against merit picks for high court”: Today’s edition of The Columbus Dispatch contains an article that begins, “Letting the governor appoint members to the Ohio Supreme Court might offer Democrats their best shot of breaking the Republican monopoly on the bench. But that doesn’t mean every Democrat is in favor.”

“Suspect Cites Trial Delay in Seeking Dismissal”: Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Lawyers for a terrorism suspect who spent nearly five years in American government custody before being sent to Manhattan for prosecution in a civilian court have asked a judge to dismiss his indictment, saying that the authorities had violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, a new court filing shows.”

“Doyle signs bill to publicly finance Supreme Court races”: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a news update that begins, “Gov. Jim Doyle on Tuesday signed a bill providing taxpayer money to Supreme Court candidates in an attempt to curtail the influence of special interests on the state’s high court. Opponents of the measure have questioned its constitutionality and hinted at the possibility of a lawsuit to block the law from taking effect.”

“New Haven fire board approves long-sought promotions”: The New Haven Register has a news update that begins, “The Board of Fire Commissioners today approved the promotions of one Hispanic and 13 white firefighters, giving them the advancement they fought for all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“This case began in 1986, when Burton W. Kanter, a well-known tax attorney and businessman, filed a petition seeking review of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination that he had not paid all his taxes.” So begins today’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Kanter v. Commissioner.

Today’s opinion goes on to explain, “Since then, the case has taken a yo-yo path through our judicial system, from the Tax Court to the Supreme Court and back again.”

“Photo of naked child not porn, state Court of Appeals rules; The court reversed the Clay County District Court conviction of Gary Lee Johnson on one count of possession of child pornography; The image at issue was of an 11- or 12-year-old girl”: The Minneapolis Star Tribune has a news update that begins, “To be considered child pornography, a photo must show an act of sexual stimulation or gratification, the state Court of Appeals said today, setting aside the conviction of a man who had a photo of a naked child on his cell phone.”

You can access today’s ruling of the Minnesota Court of Appeals at this link.

“Federal Law Limiting Legal Advice Draws Particular Interest at the Supreme Court”: Adam Liptak will have this article Wednesday in The New York Times.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure take effect today: Today is the first day of the so-called “days are days” approach to calculating time. And no, that’s not some 10,000 Maniacs song.

You can access the federal rule amendments taking effect today by clicking here. I previewed these appellate rule changes in the April 2009 installment of my “Upon Further Review” column published in The Legal Intelligencer, headlined “The Approaching Dawn of a New ‘Day’ Under the Federal Appellate Rules.”

“Lazarus wins final seat on state Superior Court”: Paula Reed Ward if The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a news update that begins, “Following a state-mandated recount for the fourth open seat on the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Philadelphia County Common Pleas Judge Anne E. Lazarus has been declared the winner.”

The Pennsylvania Department of State has issued a news release headlined “Recount in Close Superior Court Election Confirms Original Winner; Anne E. Lazarus of Philadelphia Wins Fourth Open Seat” and has posted online a “Declaration of Recount Returns.”

“House Weighs Impeachment of Judge in an Unusual Move”: Nathan Koppel and Dionne Searcey have this article today in The Wall Street Journal.

And yesterday’s edition of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reported that “Probe of U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous could touch lawyers.”

“Federal judges to take stand in trial of New Jersey shock jock Harold (Hal) Turner”: This article appeared yesterday in The New York Daily News.

“Trial ordered after high court age bias ruling”: Reuters has a report that begins, “A federal appeals court on Monday ordered a new trial in a case that led the U.S. Supreme Court in June to make it harder for workers to win age discrimination lawsuits. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said FBL Financial Group Inc, an insurance and financial services company, deserves a new trial on an age bias claim by Jack Gross, a former claims administration director.”

You can access yesterday’s ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at this link.

“Terror by Trial Lawyer”: Today in The Wall Street Journal, columnist William McGurn has this op-ed about the proposed federal legislation known as the Notice Pleading Restoration Act of 2009.

“Supreme Court refuses to hear death row inmate’s appeal; Kevin Cooper was convicted in 1985 of stabbing to death 2 adults and 2 children; His attorneys argued that exculpatory evidence was destroyed or suppressed, but the high court declined to intervene”: Carol J. Williams has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

And The Contra Costa Times reports today that “U.S. Supreme Court denies Kevin Cooper’s appeal.”

“Supreme Court Overturns Decision on Detainee Photos”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

And today in USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that “High court rejects detainee photos’ release; Justices refer to act giving authority to Defense secretary.”

“Supreme Court rejects case of valedictorian who mentioned Jesus; A high school valedictorian argued that her free-speech rights were violated when she was forced to apologize to the student body for talking about Jesus in her graduation speech; The Supreme Court refused to hear the case Monday”: Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Court hears case on whistle-blower suits; Justices explore law that blocks citizens from suing”: Joan Biskupic has this article today in USA Today.

“Justices Say Capital Cases Must Weigh War Trauma”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

In today’s edition of The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Death-row inmate’s military service is relevant, justices say; Court faults lawyer for not presenting mitigating evidence.”

And David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court throws out Korean war veteran’s death sentence; PTSD must be considered by a jury, the justices rule for the first time in a Florida case in which murderer George Porter’s own lawyer didn’t know he served in the Army, earning two Purple Hearts.”

“U.S. Supreme Court refuses to overturn S.D. woman’s award; Justices won’t hear appeal from Ford”: In today’s edition of The San Diego Union-Tribune, Greg Moran has an article that begins, “The U.S. Supreme Court will not review a last-ditch effort by automaker Ford to overturn an $82 million award for a San Diego woman who was left paralyzed when her Explorer rolled over and crushed her spine.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage reports that “Supreme Court rejects Ford’s appeal in rollover case; A San Diego woman won $83 million after her Explorer rolled over and its roof partially collapsed; The accident paralyzed her.”

And in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that “$55 million award for SUV rollover upheld.”

“Marriage battleground shifts to Massachusetts”: Today in The San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko has an article that begins, “The focus of the legal dispute over the federal refusal to recognize same-sex unions has shifted from California to Massachusetts, where the courts will tackle the question of whether Congress must treat all state-approved marriages equally.”

And today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan has an article headlined “One question divides same-sex marriage proponents: When? Some want to set a vote in 2012 on overturning Proposition 8, fearing that the planned 2010 ballot measure, if it fails, could further polarize voters.”

“New recusal rules for Mich. Supreme Court under fire”: The Detroit News contains this article today.

You can access the new recusal rules, and the opinions issued in support of and dissenting from their approval, at this link.

“Republicans revive Obama court pick fight; Hope to defeat Butler, Chen”: This article appears today in The Washington Times.

Yesterday in The Baltimore Sun, law professor Carl Tobias had an op-ed entitled “Ending ‘confirmation wars’: Despite rancor over Hamilton nomination, there are signs these fights may be over.” In addition, online at McClatchy Newspapers, Tobias has an op-ed entitled “Filling lower federal court openings.”

And The Capital Times has posted online an op-ed by Stanley Kutler entitled “Obama risks losing his judicial prize.”

“Some Justices Voice Skepticism of Merck in Vioxx Case”: Brent Kendall of Dow Jones Newswires has this report.

And law.com’s Tony Mauro reports that “High Court Seems Unconvinced by Merck in Vioxx Arguments.”