For the past few days, my commute to work has been accompanied by the mother of all countdowns on 89.7 WTMD, Towson University’s radio station. The station is counting down the top 897 albums of all time according to over 2,000 loyal listeners who submitted their top 10 albums.

In an era of corporate playlists and DJs who’d rather run their mouth instead of playing records, it’s nice to be able to listen a local station that offers a wide range of music for all us aficionados out there.

A majority of radio stations seem to enjoy drowning listeners’ eardrums in a nauseating repetition of songs and mindless morning chatter. So here’s to one of the last local bastions of audio independence.

If you get a chance, give TMD a listen. At last check, they were down (or up, depending how you look at it) to No. 615. If anyone’s curious, the countdown kicked off with “Hair Original Soundtrack” at No. 897.

FRANCIS SMITH, Special Publications Assistant Editor

The Wall Street Journal has a great story today on offbeat lawyer advertisements and the ulcers they cause in state bar officials. From the piece:

But the Florida bar isn’t buckling. It filed a complaint in 2004 against Fort Lauderdale personal-injury attorney Marc Andrew Chandler over ads that featured a pit bull wearing a spiked collar. The Florida Supreme Court sided with the bar in 2005, ruling that pit bulls conjure up images of viciousness. “Were we to approve,” the court wrote, “images of sharks, wolves, crocodiles, and piranhas could follow.”

Despite these fears, the bar in 2006 approved the use of panthers, the mascot of Miami firm Panter, Panter & Sampedro PA. At least two other Florida firms have images of lions on their Web sites, so far without censure. That panthers and lions have been tolerated bugged the pit bull lawyer, who asked a bar official how the state could favor vicious cats over pit bulls. “I asked him, ‘What would you rather deal with, a pit bull or a lion?’” Mr. Chandler says, recalling a 2006 telephone call. “There was silence on the other end. I could hear the sound of crickets chirping in the background.”

If the folks in Florida find pit bulls inappropriate, how about bulldogs, like the mascot of our former gov.’s firm? (Womble doesn’t seem to have an office in Florida, which I suppose is good news for Winston.)

Not having cable, I rarely see lawyer ads on TV, so someone’s going to have to fill me in on whether any Maryland attorneys are using potentially vicious animals in their ads.

Also, are there any ads, animal-or-alien-containing or otherwise, that you’d like to see yanked?

What would be the least apropos animal mascot for a law firm? A basket of kittens, because lawyers shouldn’t be cuddly? A python, because no one wants a lawyer to squeeze them for all they’ve got? A possum, because a good lawyer shouldn’t play dead?

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Some more news on the big-firm salary front: the largest of the truly Maryland-headquartered firms, Miles & Stockbridge, is up to $140,000. The increase, which is as of the new year, is a $15,000 bump from last year’s rate.

That puts Miles at the same salary level as Ballard Spahr’s Baltimore’s office. Both firms are $20,000 lower than the Charm City offices of Venable and DLA Piper, two firms born here but now playing with the big boys on a national level.

Miles chairman John Frisch says the raise doesn’t come with a billable-hour requirement hike. Miles remains at 1850, lower than Piper or Venable.

CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer

Writing about the federal lawsuit filed by a St. Mary’s County man over the use of sexually explicit photos of his wife on an adult “swingers and sex” personals site raised more questions than answers.

To start with, the man is identified only through initials and no names are used throughout the complaint. Even the defendants are not named – only their screen names and profiles are used. The purported pictures were sealed by the court.

According to court documents, three users of the Web site Adultfriendfinders.com used pictures of the plaintiff’s wife in their profile. He is claiming defamation and libel since anyone who sees the photos will know he is married to the woman and thus in approval of an open marriage.

For me, the unanswered questions of course include:

• How did the defendants get the photos in the first place?

• Why isn’t the wife included in the lawsuit? Seems she might have more to complain about than the plaintiff’s “reputation as a monogamous spouse.”

• If using photos of someone else for your online dating profile is libelous, does that open the door to others daters whose profiles have them claiming to be the spitting images of Brad Pitt, Halle Barry et al?

If nothing else, this should make for an interesting day in court if the case gets that far.

BEN MOOK, Assistant Business Editor