Qualcomm Inc's outside lawyers, who may face disciplinary action for discovery violations, can defend themselves in court even if it means revealing information Qualcomm previously resisted disclosing, according to a ruling by a U.S. judge.

In January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Major referred six of Qualcomm's outside attorneys to the State Bar of California for possible disciplinary action after Qualcomm did not turn over about 46,000 documents in a patent infringement case it lost against rival Broadcom Corp last year.

The attorneys appealed the sanctions to U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster, who presided over the patent infringement lawsuit in San Diego federal court.

Brewster on Wednesday vacated Major's sanctions against the six outside lawyers and ruled that Qualcomm's attorney-client privilege should not stop them from defending themselves in an appeal.

Brewster said the six lawyers identified as Batchelder, Bier, Leung, Mammen, Patch and Young, could exercise a "self-defense exception" to the attorney-client privilege previously asserted by Qualcomm in a sanctions hearing.

Brewster sent the case back to Major for a rehearing on the lawyer sanctions, but shielded Qualcomm and its employees from exposure to further punishment in the discovery violations.

On Jan. 7, Major had ordered Qualcomm to pay $8.6 million to Broadcom after citing a "monumental and intentional discovery violation" in the case involving patents for high-definition video compression technology.

Qualcomm representatives were not immediately available to comment on the ruling on Thursday afternoon.

San Diego-based Qualcomm has been embroiled in multiple legal disputes with Broadcom including a case which involved the U.S. government banning Qualcomm from importing chips that infringed on Broadcom patents.

The Florida Supreme Court has disciplined 30 attorneys, including four in Tampa Bay.

Terence John Daly of Tampa was suspended for two years retroactive to June 7, according to a Jan. 10 court order. Daly allegedly did not communicate with clients, failed to diligently pursue their cases, failed to competently represent them, failed to protect their interests when ending representation, engaged in misconduct and criminal misconduct, and violated rules regarding trust accounts, a Florida Bar release said. He was admitted to practice in 1987.

Kevin J. Hubbart of Clearwater is to receive a public reprimand and was ordered to attend Ethics School pursuant to a Jan. 17 court order. He allegedly advised clients without notifying them of a conflict of interest while he was administratively suspended for not completing continuing education requirements. He was also charged with failure to properly maintain a trust account. He was admitted to practice in 1996.

Warren Thomas LaFray of Clearwater was suspended for 36 months, effective 30 days from a Jan. 10 court order. Upon reinstatement, LaFray will be on probation for two years. Allegedly LaFray misused client trust funds, commingling them with other funds, and failed to comply with basic trust accounting practices and procedures. He neglected client matters in two cases and refused to refund fees owed to a client, the release said. He was admitted to practice in 1976.

Jessica Kathleen Miller of Holiday was suspended until further order of the court pursuant to a Jan. 15 court order. In its petition for emergency suspension, the Bar stated that Miller "has engaged in an escalating pattern of neglect that has resulted in effective abandonment of her law practice and a failure to account for and deliver funds belonging to clients and third parties," the release said. In the past two years, approximately 25 clients and other individuals have filed complaints with the Bar against Miller. She was admitted to practice in 2003.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the more than 80,000 lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida.

Berry strongly denied the assertion, saying that an e-mail message attributed to her is a fake.

The recusal motions were filed Tuesday by Fort Worth attorneys Glynis McGinty and Lesa Pamplin. The motion states that Berry directed a racial epithet at a court reporter in an e-mail she sent to her court reporter, Judy Miller.

Berry, who was in Mexico on Tuesday, flew back to Fort Worth on Wednesday to respond to the assertions.

"The reason I came back from out of the country was that I'm the steward of this court," Berry said. "The fact that someone is publicly alleging that this court is run by a racist judge is not something I'm going to stand for.

"I absolutely did not author the e-mail, dictate the e-mail, type the e-mail or send the e-mail. It's incendiary, racist, offensive language that I do not use and did not use or put in this document."

Miller said she didn't receive the e-mail, and Berry didn't write it.

"To prove authenticity is beyond our expertise," she said. "But if it was sent from her computer, Judge Berry didn't send it."

Berry has been judge of Criminal District Court No. 3 since 2003.

Pamplin contends that the e-mail, purportedly directed at court reporter Reginald "Reggie" Butler, began circulating around the courthouse last week, nearly 10 months after it supposedly was written. Pamplin said another lawyer showed her a copy of the e-mail but she does not know its original source.

Butler said Tuesday that he didn't want to comment.

On Tuesday, McGinty and Pamplin issued a news release, which they said was drafted by a number of Tarrant County's African-American defense attorneys. The two-page release cited the offensive e-mail and called for Berry's immediate resignation and Miller's immediate termination.

"It's kind of unsettling to know that in 2008 these kind of e-mails are being sent on a government computer -- and she's a judge," Pamplin said.

Attorneys who know Berry say they find it hard to believe that the veteran attorney and judge is racist.

"I've known Elizabeth as a district attorney, a defense attorney, a judge and a friend, and I can't imagine Elizabeth using that kind of language or sentiment," criminal defense attorney Jack Strickland said. "Something about this deal doesn't smell right. I wish people would give her the benefit of the doubt before they jump to conclusions."

Berry said she learned of the e-mail last month when she was notified of a confidential inquiry. She would not say whether the state Commission on Judicial Ethics made the inquiry. Commission officials also would not comment. But a Tarrant County Sheriff's Department report says a commission investigator contacted the department in December.

The judge questioned why McGinty and Pamplin would publicize the e-mail months after it purportedly was written.

"Don't you find it extremely coincidental and suspicious that over nine months later when I happen to be out of the country and unable to respond that these allegations are made public for the first time?" she said.

Leon Reed Jr., vice-president of the Tarrant County Black Bar Association, said the accusations should be investigated but that Berry should have been given the opportunity to respond before the issue was publicized.

"We're dealing with a very serious allegation that could have extensive legal ramifications," Reed said. "The first thing we should do is sit down with the judge. If she denies writing the e-mail, at a minimum an investigation should take place to determine if the e-mail was generated from her computer."

Berry said the e-mail itself raises questions about its author. For one thing, she said, she uses block letters to sign her e-mails, not the cursive signature contained in the racist e-mail.

And the date of the e-mail -- Monday, May 2, 2007 -- is incorrect, Berry said. A calendar shows that May 2 fell on a Wednesday last year.

Pamplin said she never intended to suggest that the e-mail is authentic. Her intent, she said, was to seek an independent investigation of what she considers a serious allegation.

"This is a collective action by a lot of attorneys who have concerns about this," Pamplin said. "That's why we said 'allegedly' an e-mail was sent. We're not saying it was definitive. We're saying it needs to be investigated."

Berry said it would be difficult to prove whether she did or did not send the e-mail because the county computer automatically deletes employee e-mails every 90 days.

But she said she would join with anyone, including her accusers, who wants a forensic examination of her computer to determine whether the e-mail originated there.

"If there's a way to show that the e-mail was sent or not sent, created or not created, I'd like to see that done," Berry said.

Pamplin agreed.

"If she welcomes an investigation, we welcome an investigation," Pamplin said.

The Roanoke Valley delegation, which consists of three Republicans and two Democrats in the Senate and House of Delegates, is split on who should fill the vacancy left in the 23rd Judicial District by Roanoke County General District Court Judge Julian Raney's retirement.

If legislators can't come to a consensus, the circuit judges in the district will appoint someone to fill the vacancy until at least next year.

The two candidates up for consideration, Salem City Councilman Chris Clemens and Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell, will visit the Capitol today for interviews.

In recent years, Republicans held majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly and therefore controlled appointment of judges. That would have hurt Caldwell, an active Democrat, had it been the case again this year.

But Democrats won a slim majority in the Senate last November.

"The House has its prerogative, the Senate has its prerogative, and we've got to come up with a match," said Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke.

Asked if he expects the Roanoke Valley delegation to agree on a candidate, Del. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, said: "I don't know the answer to that."

The Roanoke Bar Association and Salem/Roanoke Bar Association have each endorsed Clemens for the job. But that's only one factor that the legislators take into consideration when making a decision.

Edwards, like the other four legislators in the delegation, is complimentary of both candidates, saying that either would make a fine judge. He has so far declined to name which he favors. Instead, he said, he'd take that up with the rest of the delegation after Monday's interviews.

Griffith said he is supporting Clemens for the judgeship, but emphasized that he has no problems with Caldwell.

"The reason is he [Clemens] has been endorsed by the two local bar associations," said Griffith, the House majority leader and member of the House Courts of Justice Committee.

Meanwhile, Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke, said he's supporting Caldwell because he has more experience than Clemens and because he lives in Roanoke.

"If you look at the last several judges, all were able but not one lived in the city of Roanoke," Ware said. "Roanoke deserves a judge who lives in the city."

Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke, said he won't decide between the candidates until after their interviews today and added, "I think both of those candidates are well qualified."

But Fralin, who also sits on the House Courts of Justice Committee, said bar association endorsements would carry weight as he sizes up the candidates. All Roanoke Valley judgeships since 2001 have been filled by candidates who received a bar association endorsement.

"The bar association is very important because these are the folks who are very familiar with the people seeking the post," Fralin said.

Ware places less value on the bar endorsements. He said many of its members are corporate lawyers unfamiliar with the court for which they're endorsing a candidate.

"More than half the members who vote in the bar don't practice in General District Court," Ware said.

Freshman Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Botetourt County -- the only non-lawyer in the Roanoke Valley delegation -- is outright skeptical of bar endorsements. He said that because the lawyers in the bar will be practicing before the judge who's appointed, the endorsements represent conflicts of interest for the bars' members.

"If I'm going to serve in your courtroom for the next 20 years, the human nature is, 'How are you going to react to me?' " Smith said. "You can't take that out of it, and that's where I see a conflict of interest. I don't know that it takes an attorney's knowledge to find out who would be a good, fair judge."

That also extends, Smith said, to the 45 General Assembly members who are lawyers by profession.

"I understand it's about 32 percent of the members of the General Assembly who are attorneys, and that's a conflict of interest," Smith said. "In fact, everybody involved in this situation is an attorney except me. I'm not lobbying to say I should pick the judges, but there should be another mechanism" for appointing judges.

New Jersey Governor Corzine should not legalize same-sex marriage.

AS EXPECTED from a panel stacked with same-sex activists, the Civil Union Commission issued a report last week saying that its members believe civil unions are a failure.

What is their conclusion based on? Seven substantive complaints -- from among the 2,400 same-sex couples who have entered into civil unions in New Jersey. They complain about the failure of New Jersey employers based out of state to provide benefits to partners in civil unions. Those companies say that the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, which regulates the provision of benefits to employees, does not require them to provide expensive health benefits to same-sex couples.

Activists claim there are more complaints, including insinuations that hospitals have denied visitation – an accusation that an official from the New Jersey Hospital Association insists is absolutely false. Other additional claims are unofficial and unsubstantiated. The majority of complaints cited by the activists do not deal with rights being denied, but rather gripes about how same-sex couples have to explain themselves to other people.

The commission also says that employers in Massachusetts are more likely than those in New Jersey to voluntarily provide health benefits to same-sex couples simply because the law gives their unions the title marriage. This contention is completely anecdotal, as noted in an article last week on the New Jersey State Bar Association Web site.