In a partial concession to Congressional pressure, the Bush administration agreed on Wednesday to show the Senate and House Intelligence Committees secret Justice Department legal opinions justifying harsh interrogation techniques that critics call torture.

The decision, announced at a Senate hearing where Democrats sharply criticized the administration’s secrecy on legal questions, did not satisfy other members of Congress who have pushed for the documents for several years, notably Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said officials were discussing whether to share part or all the opinions with Mr. Leahy’s panel.

At the hearing, a department official, John P. Elwood, disclosed a previously unpublicized method to cloak government activities. Mr. Elwood acknowledged that the administration believed that the president could ignore or modify existing executive orders that he or other presidents have issued without disclosing the new interpretation.

Mr. Elwood, citing a 1980s precedent, said there was nothing new or unusual about such a view.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, challenged Mr. Elwood, saying the administration’s legal stance would let it secretly operate programs that are at odds with public executive orders that to all appearance remain in force.

The hearing, of a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was called by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin. Mr. Feingold accused the administration of a “sinister trend” of promoting “secret law.”

He referred to the refusal by the Justice Department to release opinions on interrogation and domestic surveillance from the Office of Legal Counsel, whose interpretations are binding on the executive branch.

“It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a right to know the law,” Mr. Feingold said.

Mr. Elwood, deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, disputed that declining to make legal opinions public created improper “secret law.” He said some legal opinions had to be kept from public release, at least for a time, because they deal with classified programs or to ensure that government lawyers can give confidential legal advice.

The Law Offices of Allred, Maroko & Goldberg and the Law Offices of Davis & Gavsie, PLC. are featured in an exciting, exclusive, in-depth and inside interview, discussing “sexual harassment in the workplace.”

Nathan Goldberg and Roxanne Davis, both of whom represent Mr. Stevens, discuss his case against Vons supermarkets. Joining them is Mike Lief, who served as the jury foreman in the trial James brought against Vons. James was employed by Vons for 26 years as an Inventory Control Clerk. After complaining to management about ongoing sexual harassment by a female supervisor, he was transferred to a less desirable store. Mr. Stevens filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). Vons allegedly lied to the DFEH, and the DFEH closed its file. The company then allegedly falsely accused Mr. Stevens of donating water and soda to a church that fed the homeless and fired him. On October 27, 2006, after a 6-week trial, the jury in Simi Valley awarded Mr. Stevens $1.67 million in compensatory damages and over $16 million in punitive damages. The case has been appealed by Vons.

Roxanne A. Davis has been practicing in Los Angeles, California, specializing in labor and employment law, for over 17 years. She obtained her B.A. from New York University with honors. She received her J.D. from the University of Southern California Law Center and M.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California. Roxanne is admitted to practice law in state and federal California courts. She spent 5 years of her career working as an attorney with one of the largest labor and employment law firms in the country representing management, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman. Over 13 years ago, she established her own practice in which she represents individuals and employers, in matters involving wrongful termination, discrimination and sexual harassment, among other issues. The varied demands of her practice include litigating claims of wrongful discharge, unlawful harassment, discrimination, wage and hour issues, mediation, negotiating employment contracts and separation agreements and more.

Nathan Goldberg, a partner at Allred, Maroko & Goldberg, graduated summa cum laude from Loyola Law School in 1974. He has been named one of the top 100 Southern California "SuperLawyers" by Law & Politics and Los Angeles Magazine every year since 2004. In addition, he has been recognized by LawDragon magazine as one of the 500 leading plaintiff's lawyers in America. Nathan has a broad range of trial experience in state and federal court. Nathan was also lead trial counsel in both the case of Adams v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2002) and the case of Salama v. King Drew Medical Center (2000). Each of these trials resulted in a jury award well in excess of $4 million.