Larry H. Parker, an accident and personal injury attorney whose television commercials promised he would “fight for you” and became a fixture in Los Angeles living rooms, died March 6 in San Juan Capistrano, California. He was 75.

His death was confirmed by his son, Justin Parker, who did not state the cause.

Over the years, Angelenos became familiar with Mr. Parker’s personal boasts and promise, as his face was featured on billboards around the city and in television advertisements.

“When it comes to the law, you want someone who carries a big stick,” says a narrator a commercial that ranges from a hockey fight to a shot of Mr. Parker in a suit and glasses, standing with both hands on a desk, ready for a confrontation in the courtroom.

“People sometimes ask me why I seem so angry in my TV commercials,” Mr. Parker said in another ad. “The truth is, I’m angry. I am angry when big insurance companies take advantage of small people.”

His advertisements cultivated the image of a legal fighter whose menacing screen presence could be used to the plaintiff’s advantage.

It appeared that the injured were eager to utilize the services of his firm, the Law Offices of Larry H. Parker. Since its founding 50 years ago, the company has recovered more than $2 billion in judgments and settlements, according to its website.

“I wanted the consumer to see someone who cared about their rights,” Mr. Parker said in an interview Interview from 1995 with The Los Angeles Times. “They see me, the real man.”

The centerpiece of many advertisements was a parade of testimonials from victims of injury or hardship, although beneath the large banner displaying the company’s 800 number was small print noting that the accounts were a dramatization played by “actors pretending to be as victims of injuries in fictional films’. fallen.”

The ads were clearly part of a campy brand popular among personal injury lawyers, but Mr. Parker positioned himself as a champion of those who felt powerless against faceless insurance giants.

“If the insurance companies would just treat these people fairly,” Mr. Parker told The Times, “they would put guys like me out of business.”

Larry Hugh Parker was born on August 26, 1948 in Philadelphia to Ben Parker and Netty (Reardon) Parker.

He graduated from California State University, Los Angeles in 1970 with a degree in psychology. After attending Southwestern Law School, he received a California State Bar certification in 1973, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Mr. Parker is survived by his wife, Irene Parker; his son Justin; two daughters, Shelley and Jodi Parker; and three granddaughters.

The company’s commercials began airing around 1982. Later, during the OJ Simpson trial, his ads became more widely known as viewers were glued to their television screens in what would become a global cultural moment. But advertising time during the trial was also busier, he said.

“It helps, and it hurts,” Mr. Parker said in the 1995 Times article. “It helps because there are a lot more people watching. On the other hand, it hurts because you can’t run your ad because the messaging is ahead of you.”

Those kinds of ads didn’t come without their own hidden costs, on top of the roughly $1 million on ads the company spent a year, according to an article from 1994 in De Tijden.

His commercials, and those of some of his competitors, sent California lawmakers into an uproar. Lawmakers and some trial attorneys feared that potential plaintiffs might think they could abuse the legal system for personal gain.

“If anyone looks at these ads, there is a common message,” a spokesperson for the California Trial Lawyers Association told The Times in 1994. “You can make a lot of money by ripping off the system.”

But Mr. Parker believed everyone should have a chance to fight back.

“We will always be attacked,” he said. “But at the end of the day, everyone needs a lawyer in their lives.”

Ashleigh Merchant, an Atlanta attorney representing one of Donald J. Trump’s co-defendants, demanded “justification” Friday for her efforts to try Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis on the election interference case. to have Georgia rejected.

“The judge clearly agreed with the defense that Willis’ actions are the result of her poor judgment,” Ms. Merchant said in a statement, “and that there is a risk to the future of this case if she does not act quickly . to heal her conflict.”

Ms. Merchant was the main force behind the effort to disqualify the district attorney on the grounds that her relationship with Nathan J. Wade, the lawyer she hired to handle the Trump case, posed a financial conflict of interest.

Although Judge Scott McAfee ruled on Friday that Ms. Willis could remain on the case, he sharply criticized her ruling and said Mr. Wade must recuse himself or Ms. Willis would have to resign. But he also said defense lawyers had failed to prove a conflict — and had only shown the appearance of a conflict. Ms Willis and Mr Wade have not yet commented on the ruling.

Ms. Merchant, 46, threw the Trump case into turmoil in early January when she revealed the relationship between the plaintiffs in a court filing. That set off a series of hearings that turned the table on the accusers, forcing them to take their stand and ask pointed questions about their relationship and finances.

Ms. Merchant, a graduate of the University of Florida and its law school, who represents Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official charged in the election interference investigation, emerged from the hearings with a national profile and appeared in court as intense and unyielding. with a quick questioning style.

She and her husband, John Merchant, have their own office, and Mrs. Merchant recently became president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. She is well connected in local legal circles and used those connections to depose Ms. Willis.

Ms. Merchant knew that Mr. Wade was friends with his former partner and divorce lawyer Terrence Bradley, whom she called to testify. Although Mr. Bradley proved to be an extremely reluctant witness, text messages between Ms. Merchant and Mr. Bradley discussing the plaintiffs’ romantic relationship were among the most scrutinized evidence in the disqualification efforts.

As the hearings progressed, the prosecution team launched scathing attacks on Ms Merchant; Ms. Willis said in her testimony: “Ms. The interests of the merchant are contrary to democracy.” During one of the hearings, Ms Merchant told the judge: “They have far from called me a liar today.”

A Republican lawyer who worked in both the Trump White House and the Trump campaign said Friday that she is running to dethrone Fani T. Willis, the embattled Atlanta prosecutor who brought the election interference case against the former president in Georgia.

The challenger, Courtney A. Kramer, 30, qualified Friday to run for Fulton County district attorney. As a little-known candidate and Republican, she faces long odds in the heavily Democratic country: former President Donald J. Trump won only 26 percent of the vote in 2020.

But she could potentially raise large sums of money from Trump supporters across the country, receive airtime on conservative media outlets and use the fame to cast doubt on Trump’s prosecution ahead of the November election.

Ms. Kramer is also likely to amplify criticism of Ms. Willis, who is the subject of a disqualification effort, backed by lawyers, for Mr. Trump and his co-defendants.

The biography on Ms. Kramer’s LinkedIn page lists numerous MAGA references. She served as an intern in the White House Counsel’s Office during the Trump administration and later as a litigation adviser for the Trump campaign’s legal team in Georgia after the 2020 election as it tried to keep him in power despite his loss.

She worked at a company run by Ray Smith III, one of Trump’s co-defendants in the election case. She also worked as a special counsel for the Georgia Republican Party when it was led by David Shafer, another co-defendant in the Trump case. Her resume also includes a year as executive director of True the Vote, an organization spreading misinformation about the 2020 election.

Ms. Kramer said in a brief interview with reporters on Friday that the catalyst for her campaign was the August indictment of Mr. Trump and 18 of his allies, who were accused of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. (Four defendants have now pleaded guilty.)

She described the charges as the “moment where I said I had had enough,” adding: “The resources used for that investigation could have been used for many other things, which would have been much more beneficial to the citizens of Fulton. District.”

The candidacy is another headache for Ms. Willis, a Democrat who took office in January 2021. A judge has said he will rule this month on the disqualification petitions, which allege Ms Willis created a conflict of interest by receiving gifts from a romantic. partner she hired to manage the Trump case. Ms Willis denies there is a conflict of interest and is fighting to stay on the case.

Ms. Kramer would not say whether she would dismiss the charges against Trump if elected. However, she said of Mr. Trump: “I don’t think he broke the law.” She also said that if Ms. Willis is not disqualified, it would “set a terrible precedent for prosecutors across the state and across the country.”

A Democratic challenger to Ms. Willis also qualified for Friday’s vote. Christian Wise Smith, a former prosecutor, ran unsuccessfully for Fulton County district attorney in 2020 and for Georgia attorney general in 2022.

After qualifying, Mr Smith said he registered to keep his options open and was unsure whether he would actually campaign for the job.

Election day for the district attorney race is November 5, the same day voters will go to the polls to make their choice for president.

Sean Teare, a former prosecutor and first-time candidate who promised new approaches to handling low-level criminal cases, defeated Kim Ogg, the two-term district attorney in Harris County, Texas, in the Democratic primary on Tuesday.

Ms. Ogg conceded the race on Tuesday night after early voting results showed her trailing by more than 50 percentage points.

‘If doing my job costs me my job, I will leave with my head held high’ said Mrs. Ogg.

The outcome marked years of growing Democratic discontent with Ms. Ogg, the top prosecutor in Houston, culminating in a steep political decline over the past year. A University of Houston poll last month showed that Mr. Teare, who entered the race as a virtually unknown candidate, with a 38-point lead over Ms Ogg.

Ms. Ogg was first elected in 2016 and was part of a wave of Democrats who pledged to make the criminal justice system less punitive. She was the first Democrat in decades to hold the position of district attorney in Harris County.

But she grew into a lightning rod within her own party.

As voters become more concerned about crime in urban areas, liberal prosecutors across the country have seen their political fortunes change. They have faced occasional challenges, even from moderate Democrats.

Ms. Ogg appeared to adapt to the changing political tides by moving to the center and finding common cause with some conservatives. But in doing so she opened herself up to an attack from the left.

Many voters in the Democratic Party’s base in Houston believed that she was reneging on her promises in favor of a tougher approach to law and order, and they accused her of forging alliances with Republicans against elected Democrats in the province.

Mr Teare, 44, worked under Ms Ogg as a crime and vehicle crimes department head. He caused a wave of discontent among Democratic activists in Houston a formal admonition of Ms Ogg last year by provincial party insiders who accused her of betraying her party’s values.

Ms. Ogg also angered many Democrats by addressing what happened a public feud with the top elected Democrat in Harris County, Lina Hidalgo, the district judge. Ms. Ogg’s office has charged top aides to Ms. Hidalgo ahead of Ms. Hidalgo’s 2022 re-election, a move seen as an attempt by Ms. Ogg to undermine the popular leader. Ms. Hidalgo narrowly won her race.

Ms Ogg, who has defeated the main challenges from its political left in 2020this time faced an even tougher match.

Local organizers, including some from the progressive Working Families Party, rallied support for Mr. Teare, who spoke during the campaign about his mother, an actress who became addicted to heroin and left the family when Mr. Teare was a teenager. (She died more than ten years ago.)

He said seeing her arrest on drug possession charges and the way it affected her life had helped him empathize with people struggling with addiction.

In an interview before Tuesday’s primary, Mr. Teare said he decided to challenge Ms. Ogg after watching several serious prosecutions fall apart and good prosecutors leave her office in frustration. He said the department was “focusing on the wrong types of crimes,” such as low-level drug crimes and shoplifting.

If he wins the general election in November, Mr. Teare said, he would seek to redesign the district attorney’s office, with the aim of both effectively prosecuting violent offenders and seeking alternatives to incarceration in certain cases of drug possession or theft. These changes would be in line with a national criminal justice movement that includes prosecutors in places like Philadelphia.

“I see myself as a Texas version of that,” Mr. Teare said, meaning his approach would be tailored to the state. “I don’t think Harris County is Philadelphia or Chicago.”

Republican politicians in the state legislature have tried to rein in local prosecutors in Texas’ Democratic cities. A new law passed last year prohibits prosecutors from declining to prosecute certain crimes — such as crimes related to abortion or low-level marijuana possession — and provides for their removal if they don’t comply.

In the November general election, Mr. Teare will face a Republican, Dan Simons, a former Harris County prosecutor who ran unopposed in his party’s primary and, according to available records, has raised no money.

An explosive device was detonated early Saturday outside the Alabama attorney general’s office in downtown Montgomery, Attorney General Steve Marshall said. in a statement on Monday.

The explosion, which Mr. Marshall said did not injure anyone, occurred a day after he announced that he did not intend to prosecute IVF providers or families seeking treatment following a recent Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos are legally children are considered.

The statement did not say whether the explosion caused damage, whether the motive for the act was known or whether there were any suspects.

“The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency will be leading the investigation and we urge anyone with information to contact them immediately,” Marshall said in the statement.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said Monday she could provide no other information beyond the statement and referred further questions to the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency. The agency did not immediately respond to a phone call and email requesting comment late Monday afternoon.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling — issued earlier this month in appeals brought by couples whose embryos were destroyed at a Mobile fertility clinic — has shocked the reproductive medicine world and cast doubt on fertility care for parents-to-be in Alabama and raise complex legal questions. It has also led to some clinics in the state halting IVF treatments and leaving many women in limbo.

On Friday, the attorney general’s office took action to address some of those concerns. Mr. Marshall “does not intend to use the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent decision as a basis for prosecuting IVF families or providers,” Katherine Robertson, the firm’s lead attorney, said in a statement.

Prosecutors in Manhattan on Monday asked the judge overseeing the criminal case against Donald J. Trump to ban the former president from attacking witnesses or revealing the identities of jurors.

The requests, filed in documents from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, noted Trump’s “long history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges and others involved in legal proceedings against him.”

In outlining a narrowly drafted gag order, the agency heeded closely the terms of a similar order upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington in another Trump criminal case.

The silence order in the Manhattan case, if the judge approves it, would prevent Trump from “making statements or directing others” to make statements about witnesses about their role in the case. The prosecutor, Alvin L. Bragg, also asked that Mr. Trump not comment on the prosecutors in the case — with the exception of Mr. Bragg himself — and members of the court staff.

Mr. Bragg wants the judge, Juan M. Merchan, to protect the jurors as well. His accusers asked that Trump be barred from publicly revealing their identities. And while Mr. Trump and his legal team may know the names of the jurors, Mr. Bragg asked that their addresses be kept secret from the former president.

If Judge Merchan approves the restrictions, he would be just the latest judge to impose a gag order on the former president. There was an injunction in the Washington case, a federal case involving allegations that Mr. Trump plotted to overturn the 2020 election. And the judge in the recently concluded civil fraud trial against Trump ordered Mr. Trump not to comment on court personnel.

The criminal case in Manhattan was the first of four indictments against Trump. Last year, the district attorney’s office charged Mr. Trump with 34 crimes, saying he orchestrated a cover-up of a possible sex scandal involving a porn star that could have hampered his 2016 presidential campaign. The trial starts on March 25.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers will most likely oppose the silence order and could appeal it if Judge Merchan accepts it.

The former president has enjoyed public attacks on his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who is now one of Mr. Bragg’s key witnesses. Mr. Cohen paid $130,000 in hush money to the porn star to silence her story of an affair with Mr. Trump and was later reimbursed by Mr. Trump.

In its own filing on Monday, Mr. Trump’s defense team asked the judge to bar Mr. Cohen from testifying.

“Michael Cohen is a liar,” the former president’s lawyers wrote, accusing Mr. Cohen of perjury in Mr. Trump’s civil fraud trial and saying his public statements showed he planned to lie again. (The judge in the civil fraud case concluded that Mr. Cohen had been credible and had “told the truth.”)

Mr. Cohen fired back on Monday, saying in a text message: “As the March 25 date gets closer, Donald and his maverick legal team will try to come up with new ways to delay this case.”

New York’s attorney general on Thursday urged the Food and Drug Administration to “take immediate action” and renew warnings to doctors and patients about Singulair’s dangerous effects on children, saying the current warnings about the psychiatric side effects of the drug were not sufficient.

In a letterAttorney General Letitia James also called on the federal agency to consider discouraging the prescribing of Singulair, an asthma and allergy drug, to children.

Thousands of patients and parents have complained to the FDA about symptoms of anxiety, anger, hallucinations and other psychiatric problems that they linked to the drug, which is also known in its generic form as montelukast. These reports, combined with an emotional 2019 FDA hearing and cases cited in the medical literature, led the FDA in 2020 to order its strictest warning on instructions for using the drug.

But an investigation by The New York Times found that people continued to report being unaware of possible side effects, including suicide or suicide attempts, when taking the medication or giving it to their children.

Ms. James quoted The Times article and called on the FDA “to implement new, stricter safety regulations for the drug,” especially for children.

“Parents and guardians have the right to be fully informed about the potential side effects of a medicine when making choices about the health of their children,” Ms James said in a statement on Thursday. “The risks associated with using Singulair are far too great to happen without a very clear warning.”

Asked for comment, Chanapa Tantibanchachai, an FDA spokeswoman, said Thursday that the agency would respond directly to Ms. James.

The drug was a blockbuster for Merck in its early years. It is now a generic drug and remains a favorite for doctors, especially because children can take a chewable tablet once a day instead of having to juggle an inhaler. It is not a steroid, which is cited as another reason why it is considered an option for asthmatics.

More than 12 million people filled a prescription for the medication in 2022, according to data provided to The Times by Komodo Health, a medical data company.

Merck has continued to defend the drug in court, but had previously referred comment to a generic maker, Organon, which said the drug’s risks had been communicated to patients and health care providers.

Facing criticism over the years about the drug’s continued availability despite its risks, the FDA has said it has acted appropriately in response to concerns about the drug. The agency says it continues to study and monitor the drug, but that studies large enough to detect rare events linked to the drug, such as suicide, were not feasible.

Ms. James’ letter outlines more steps the FDA could take, including new drug safety communications to doctors, pharmacists and other health care providers. She urged further evaluation to ensure the drug still provides more benefit than risk for children.

Thomas Moore, a long-time drug safety expert tracked reports of montelukast’s psychiatric effects, said the FDA is known to push drugmakers to conduct studies to determine whether warnings are reaching patients.

“This underlines that all parents of children taking this drug should be alert to unexpected changes in behavior and consider this as a possibility,” said Mr. Moore of the Johns Hopkins Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness.

Kammy Pany, an administrator of a Facebook group for people who say they have been affected by the drug, said she was pleased to hear Ms James was seeking action and a deeper investigation. Her son, she believed, suffered from side effects in 2017. For her, comforting parents who find the group has been a time-consuming task.

“It’s about time,” Mrs. Pany said. “My goal one day is to not have to do this anymore.”

Ashleigh Merchant is an attorney representing Michael Roman, a former campaign official for former President Donald J. Trump and a co-defendant facing criminal charges in the Georgia election interference case.

Mrs. Merchant, who was recently elected president of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Attorneyspossess a private practice with her husband. She used to be one public defender in Fulton County for several years.

In early January, Ms. Merchant filed court papers accusing Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis of engaging in a “clandestine” relationship with Nathan J. Wade, the special prosecutor she hired in 2021 to helping with the case against Mr. Trump and his allies.

Ms. Merchant has argued that the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis should disqualify them, as well as Ms. Willis' entire office, from prosecuting the case, citing a conflict of interest. She alleged Ms Willis took financial advantage of the accuser and accused her of going on holiday with Mr Wade with money he earned working for her.

Ms Willis admitted in February that she had a relationship with Mr Wade, but argued that was not a reason to disqualify her or her office from the case. She and Mr. Wade have also said they share costs for private travel.

In the court papers, Ms Merchant said Mr Wade was not qualified for the role. But in 2016, she praised Mr Wade's “robust legal background” on Facebook as she supported him in one of his failed attempts to be elected as a Supreme Court judge. Another post showed a photo of her posing in a Wade campaign T-shirt.

Asked about the posts, Ms. Merchant recently said that Mr. Wade was “the most qualified candidate in that race.”

Before Thursday's hearing, Ms. Merchant sent subpoenas demanding that Mr. Wade, Ms. Willis and several witnesses testify about the plaintiffs' relationship. It is unclear whether the judge will allow her to put them on the stand.

Richard Fausset And Danny Hakim reporting contributed.