Just a few years ago, lobbyist Jack Abramoff wielded an "endless expense account" and "nearly endless tickets" for entertaining public officials, a former "Team Abramoff" lobbyist said in testimony during the trial of Kevin Ring, another former member of the lobbying team. So much has changed since, though, that the decision in the case -- which went to the jury this week -- is unlikely to impact the lobbying industry.

"Congress has already legislatively dealt with the problems that are being illustrated in this trial," said Marc Elias, an attorney with Perkins Coie who specializes in ethics and white collar criminal matters.

In 2007, largely as a reaction to the Abramoff scandal and others like it, Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, which increased lobbying disclosure requirements and further restricted gifts to lawmakers and staffers.

The trial has illustrated how different life was for lobbyists not long ago. The government alleges that between 2000 and 2004, Ring used sports and entertainment tickets, meals and drinks to influence public officials and reward them for acts that benefited his clients.

In presenting evidence, the government has valued some of those restaurant tabs and sought-after tickets -- including 2002 NCAA tournament games and floor seats to Wizards basketball games -- at hundreds of dollars. Abramoff's lobbying team spent more than $5.1 million on suites at D.C.-area sporting venues in the five-year time period, according to an estimate by the FBI presented during the trial. And Ann Copland, a former aide to Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., received personal gifts valued at about $25,000 from members of Team Abramoff including Ring, according to a Department of Justice estimate that Copland cited during testimony.

Before the 2007 change in lobbying laws, Senate and House rules allowed gifts from lobbyists that were capped at a value of $50 each, not to exceed $100 in gifts from a single source in a calendar year. Now, no gifts are allowed from registered lobbyists to lawmakers or staffers (though some exceptions to the gift ban remain), eliminating any wiggle room that may have existed if the giver or receiver claimed not to know the value of the gift. The new rules also specifically address sporting and entertainment tickets given by a lobbyist, mandating that the face value must be paid for by the lawmaker or staffer; if the ticket does not have a face value (as is sometimes the case with suite tickets) they must pay the face value of the highest-priced ticket to the event.

Neil Volz, a former Team Abramoff lobbyist who pleaded guilty in 2006 for his role in the scandal, described himself in testimony during the trial as a "sugar daddy" to members of Congress and staffers.

"I got calls: 'Let's go drinking.' To me, that meant 'bring the credit card,'" Volz said from the witness stand.

The laws are more explicit about that type of "sugar daddy" behavior now, and picking up the tab for lawmakers or staffers just doesn't happen anymore, experts say.

"The tickets to sporting events and concerts and free, extravagant meals -- those were a thing of the past before the trial started," said Thomas Susman, director of the American Bar Association's government affairs office and an editor of lobbying guidebooks. Members of Congress and staffers do not want "to be identified in the post-Abramoff era as seeking or taking things that would even appear inappropriate," he added.

Testimony in the trial also indicated that in the Abramoff era, even the more permissive rules of the time were often ignored. Todd Boulanger, another former Team Abramoff lobbyist who has pleaded guilty, testified that he didn't pay attention to guidelines provided to him by his lobbying firm, and he thought most other lobbyists disregarded them as well.

Now, disregarding the rules is not an option. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act expressly prohibits registered lobbyists from providing gifts or travel to members of Congress and congressional staffers if the lobbyist knows the gift may not be accepted under congressional rules.

"The Ring trial suggests you had lobbyists that felt they could ignore the congressional gift rules because they didn't apply to them," Elias said. "Now the lobbyists have to certify they have complied with the rules."

That certification takes place on a lobbying disclosure form -- the LD-203 -- that must be filed twice a year by individuals or organizations registered to lobby. The form includes a box that must be checked stating that the filer has not provided gifts or travel that would violate Senate or House rules. Lying on the form can result in criminal charges.

"The Kevin Rings of the world now have to certify under perjury they didn't give the gifts," Elias said. The new lobbying rules "upped the stakes on the lobbyists as well as on the members and staff."

But if the rules were systematically disregarded before 2007, it may not be entirely the lobbyists' fault, according to Susman, who worked with Ring for a common client when Susman was an attorney at Ropes & Gray.

"Congress made pretty clear that they weren't interested in enforcing or abiding by their own rules," Susman said.

The reformed rules have made expectations far clearer, and both sides of the influence industry are already complying, he said. Whether Ring is found guilty or not guilty, lobbyists and public officials have already settled into the new routine, and that isn't likely to change. A conviction won't cause lobbyists to be "any more careful," and an acquittal won't cause a "feeding frenzy," Susman argued.

Still, when the jury comes back with a decision, Ring's personal life will change, perhaps dramatically, for better or worse, and the lobbying world will surely be watching with its own interests in mind.