In a case that has cost Madison bars hundred of thousands of dollars in legal fees, attorneys are once again heading to court to argue over the legality of a voluntary ban on drink specials that began in 2002.

Two University of Wisconsin students and a Janesville resident filed the class-action lawsuit in 2004, alleging 24 campus-area bars and the Dane County Tavern League engaged in an illegal conspiracy to ban drink specials on Friday and Saturday nights after 8 p.m.

Kendall Harrison, an attorney at Godfrey & Kahn, which represents the defendants, said he was disappointed Friday to hear the case had been taken up by the state Supreme Court.

"Nobody likes doing additional work," said Harrison, who has helped the defendants win cases before a Dane County Circuit Court and the District 4 Court of Appeals. "We're going to make the same arguments we did before, because they both ruled that we were right."

The defense has argued the city of Madison forced the taverns, through threats of regulating drink prices, to collectively regulate prices themselves. The previous courts have also accepted the defense's interpretation that Wisconsin law allows municipalities to regulate drink prices through alcohol regulation statutes.

Steve Uhr, a Minneapolis attorney for the plaintiffs, said no such statutes exist.

"Our main argument is that there is no statute that says taverns don't have to follow the antitrust laws," Uhr said. "I think [the taverns] entered into the agreement for the same reason anybody does price-fixing — to make more money."

According to court documents, city and university officials began placing pressure on campus-area bars in 2001 to ban drink specials — discounted prices on certain alcoholic drinks — because it was believed at the time that higher prices would deter excessive alcohol consumption. The taverns abandoned the plan after 18 months, seeing no decline in downtown violence.

"It's very clear that the city was regulating even if they didn't pass any ordinances," Harrison said.

Since there was no ordinance, Uhr said city action is "irrelevant."

"If the city had passed a law, there never would have been a case," Uhr added.

By mid-April, the plaintiffs are required to file court briefs with the state Supreme Court and the defendants have 20 days to reply. Since the court does not hear oral arguments over the summer, hearings will probably be delayed until September or October, Harrison said.

Harrison predicts the court may have a verdict before next winter.