“Homeless man wins legal victory in Henrico panhandling case”: The Richmond Times-Dispatch has this report on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued today.

“Practice Points: Dr. Schindler’s ‘Absolut Schrecklich’ Supreme Court Petition Snares Howard Shipley, Or, Learned German Does Not Make Legal English.” James Ching has this interesting essay online at law.com.

Discussing the attorney’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to show cause, Ching writes:

Unaddressed are two major issues. First, was it a violation of professional principles to allow Schindler to write briefs so bad that they would prejudice his case? Schindler obviously had no idea that his briefs were utterly terrible, and as Schindler’s lawyer, Shipley had the duty to counsel him they were, mildly-put, inadvisable. Shipley had two previews of this bad writing in the Circuit and his explanation that the Circuit did not take offense simply does the answer the direct question of Shipley’s own professional responsibility to his client.

Secondly, it is clear that Shipley materially aided Schindler in the unauthorized practice of law, issuing the petition under his, not Schindler’s signature. In this light, it was a grievous lack of candor to simply acknowledge in a footnote that Schindler “should be recognized for his significant contributions to this Petition.” Moreover, argumentation, whether live or in briefs, is uniformly restricted to licensed attorneys, and the Petition is a prime example of what happens when the inmates rule the asylum.

And at the blog “Legal Ethics Forum,” John Steele recently had a post titled “Foley partner files response to SCOTUS regarding unorthodox amicus brief.” Although Steele can be faulted for thinking that this matter involved the filing of an amicus brief, his post has attracted some interesting comments. In particular, Neal Goldfarb (author of the “LAWnLinguistics” blog) has a very interesting comment.

“New Orleans tour guides’ licensing fight turned away by U.S. Supreme Court”: The Times-Picayune of New Orleans has this report.

“Military court’s HIV ruling may have larger impact”: Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau has this report.

You can access my earlier coverage of yesterday’s U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruling at this link.

“Judge rejects feds’ timetable on immigration case”: Josh Gerstein of Politico.com has this report.

“Administration: No quick fix if court kills health subsidies.” The Associated Press has this report.

Reuters reports that “U.S. health official says no fix if Obamacare subsidies thrown out.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times, Robert Pear will have an article headlined “Congress Is Told Ruling Against Health Law Would Impact Poor.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “U.S.: It has no fix if Court nullifies health care subsidies.”

“Argument preview: Faith and a workplace dress code.” Lyle Denniston has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Supreme Court rules Neb. must pay Kan. in interstate river battle”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“Court nixes Occupy marchers’ suit over mass arrest on bridge”: The Associated Press has this report on the substance of the ruling that I discuss in the post immediately below.

And Reuters reports that “New York court dismisses lawsuit over Occupy Wall Street arrests.”

And the final paragraph of my post immediately below has also precipitated the following email from a reader who seems to know a thing or two about the subject:

[W]hile I agree with you entirely that “en banc” is the preferred term, have you considered the fact that 28 U.S.C. sec. 46 still says “in banc”? The Second Circuit’s use of “in banc” may not be just stubbornness, but deference to the principle that a statute generally overrides a rule. I suppose you could say that under the Rules Enabling Act, the change in the rules from “in” to “en,” postdating the statute, makes the “in” in the statute “of no further force or effect.” Still, the U.S. Code is still the U.S. Code, and Congress still makes the laws. Perhaps the court views the use of “in” as a “substantive right” that cannot be abridged by rulemaking….

Exemplifying how much the Second Circuit loathes rehearing en (or in) banc: Ordinarily, when a federal appellate court grants rehearing en banc to decide an appeal, the original three-judge panel’s decision is not only vacated, but the original three-judge panel loses control over the case, which is then instead pending before the full court for decision. Yesterday, however, the Second Circuit issued an order and a decision that justify my use of the wiggle-word “ordinarily” in the opening sentence of this post.

After the Second Circuit took what for it is the extraordinary step of granting rehearing en banc to decide a case, the original three-judge panel decided to flip the result in the case from a 2-to-1 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs to a unanimous ruling in favor of the defendants. Today’s unanimous three-judge panel ruling can be accessed here. The original three-judge panel’s ruling, reaching the opposite result by a vote of 2-to-1, can be accessed here.

Separately today, the full court issued an order explaining that in light of the three-judge panel’s new decision, “this case no longer warrants consideration by the in [sic] banc Court.”

For those keeping score at home, Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch‘s amended opinion for the three-judge panel correctly refers to rehearing “en banc,” while the Second Circuit Clerk’s Office still clings stubbornly to the now disfavored “in banc” label.

“Wolf’s effort to fill Supreme Court vacancies collapses”: Angela Couloumbis has this front page article in today’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Religious groups back Muslim woman in U.S. high court scarf case”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report.

“Lawyer: HIV assault ruling could end all such military cases.” The Associated Press has a report that begins, “The attorney for a Kansas airman says a ruling by the nation’s highest military court that reversed his client’s conviction for exposing multiple sex partners to HIV will effectively end such prosecutions in the armed forces.”

You can access yesterday’s unanimous ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces at this link.

“Supreme Court sides with Kansas in water dispute”: The Associated Press has this report.

The Appellate Rules and Forms Public Hearing in Washington, DC has been rescheduled for March 6, 2015: As reflected here (scroll down).

According to information that I have received, representatives of the ABA’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the Appellate Section of the State Bar of Texas, and EarthJustice are scheduled to testify at the hearing.

You can access the public comments that those groups submitted, and all other public comments (including mine), via this link.

In the March 2015 issue of ABA Journal magazine: Mark Walsh has an article headlined “Although the ACA is 1,000 pages long, its future may depend on a single phrase.”

David L. Hudson Jr. has an article headlined “Florida Bar restrictions on lawyer ads which cite past results is struck down by federal court.”

And Steven Seidenberg has an article headlined “Law school clinics join to help battle patent trolls.”

Access online the February 2015 edition of Appellate Issues, a publication of the ABA Council of Appellate Lawyers: You can access the publication at this link.

I am privileged to have an article in the issue titled “The Lure of the Internet,” but the good news is that the issue seems packed with interesting articles, including one written by Marie E. Williams titled “The Last Scalia and Garner Book. Maybe.”

“Foley Atty In High Court Row May Have Broken Ethics Rules”: Andrew Strickler of Law360.com has a report (subscription required for full access) that begins, “The Foley & Lardner LLP partner who drew a rare sanction threat from the U.S. Supreme Court for filing an impenetrable, jargon-packed petition he says was penned largely by his client may have breached professional conduct rules when he didn’t withdraw from the patent case, legal ethics experts said.”

Earlier this morning, I had this post collecting additional coverage.

“Ohio Amish beard-cutter has learned lesson, seeks release from prison, attorneys say”: The Associated Press has this report.

“Supreme Court Will Hear UVA Law Clinic Case Involving Felons and Firearms Tuesday”: UVA Law School has this report.

“Constitution Check: Will the government’s global wiretap program ever be subject to challenge?” Lyle Denniston has this post today at the “Constitution Daily” blog of the National Constitution Center.

“Muslim’s case takes ‘look’ at Abercrombie & Fitch policy”: Richard Wolf of USA Today has this report.

Access online today’s ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in an argued case: Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court in Kansas v. Nebraska, No. 126-Orig. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Antonin Scalia issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. And Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Scalia and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined in full and in which Chief Justice Roberts joined in part. You can access the oral argument via this link.

“Chief justice could again swing Obamacare case in government’s favor”: Lawrence Hurley of Reuters has this report today.

“Justices Weigh Denial of Visa to Husband of U.S. Citizen”: Adam Liptak has this article in today’s edition of The New York Times.

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports that “High court divided on refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s Afghan spouse.”

In today’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage has an article headlined “Supreme Court hears woman’s case on visa denial for Afghan husband.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court weighs case involving Afghan man barred from U.S.”

And on yesterday evening’s broadcast of NPR’s “All Things Considered,” Nina Totenberg had an audio segment titled “Supreme Court Considers Visa Case For Foreign Spouses.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Kerry v. Din, No. 13-1402.

“Supreme Court To Hear Abercrombie’s Religious Headscarf Case”: Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on today’s broadcast of NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

“Details on SCOTUS’ Sanction of Patent Attorney Howard Shipley”: Mark Wilson has this post at FindLaw’s “U.S. Supreme Court News & Information Blog.”

At “The Volokh Conspiracy,” Will Baude has a post titled “An instance of increased transparency at the Supreme Court.”

Tony Mauro of The National Law Journal has a Supreme Court Brief headlined “Five Questions Concerning the Curious Case of Howard Shipley” (subscription required for full access) in which Mauro not only links to my earlier coverage but also interviews New York University School of Law professor Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert.

And as of this very monent a total of 18 reader comments appear appended to a “Patently-O” post from Saturday titled “Foley Partner Responds to SCOTUS Show Cause Order: I had no choice and you’re overreacting.”

My four recent lengthy posts discussing various aspects of this matter in detail can be accessed here, here, here, and here.

“PA Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Saylor says court will be fine with five in ’15”: Charles Thompson of The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has this report, along with an article headlined “Local issues, not racially charged email, led Pa. Supreme Court candidate to withdraw, senator says.”

Brad Bumsted of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports that “Judge, law school dean out as nominees for Pennsylvania Supreme Court.”

Fifth Circuit takes high school student’s rap song suspension case en banc: You can access last Thursday’s order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granting rehearing en banc, which that court posted online today, at this link.

The original three-judge panel’s ruling can be accessed here, and my coverage of that ruling appears at this link.

“C.J. Seitz nominated to Delaware Supreme Court”: The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware has a report that begins, “Longtime corporate lawyer Collins J. Seitz Jr. has been nominated to the Delaware Supreme Court, on which his late father once served, the governor’s office announced Monday.”

“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Elected Judges.” You can view the video segment on YouTube at this link (via Adam Liptak’s tweet).

“Judicial Selection in Congress’ Lame Duck Session”: Law professor Carl Tobias has this article at The Supplement, an online publication of the Indiana Law Journal.

How did Howard N. Shipley end up facing possible SCOTUS discipline for filing a largely incomprehensible, client-written cert. petition? Before this matter arrived as a cert. petition filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, the case was pending as an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The history of the case in the Federal Circuit is worth noting, and I haven’t seen it covered in detail elsewhere. While pending in the Federal Circuit, the case was known by the short name In re Teles AG, No. 12-1297 (Fed. Cir.). The Fried Frank law firm initially represented Teles AG in the Federal Circuit and filed the brief for appellant. Attorney James W. Dabney, a highly experienced patent appellate attorney who was then at Fried Frank, appeared as lead counsel for Teles AG on the brief for appellant, which was filed on July 16, 2012. The brief for appellant appears to have been written by actual lawyers, and I could not find any statement in that brief attributing any of the language in the brief to the client’s non-lawyer CEO. Teles AG also attracted an amicus brief filed in support of its position in the appeal.

In February 2013, Teles AG filed its reply brief for appellant. Neither Fried Frank nor Dabney appeared on the reply brief as counsel for Teles AG. Rather, the cover of the reply brief reflects that Fried Frank had been replaced by Foley & Lardner as appellate counsel for Teles AG. Attorney Michael D. Kaminski of Foley & Lardner appeared on the reply brief as lead counsel for Teles AG, and Kaminski’s entry of appearance in the Federal Circuit identified him as principal counsel for the client. A total of four Foley & Lardner lawyers appeared on the cover of the reply brief, a brief whose authorship a motion attributed in large measure to the client’s non-lawyer CEO.

In March 2013, Fried Frank filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for Teles AG, which the Federal Circuit soon thereafter granted. Fried Frank’s motion to withdraw does not explain why that law firm was removing itself from the case, and it appears that Dabney remained at Fried Frank for another 18 months before leaving to join his current law firm.

Michael D. Kaminski of Foley & Lardner presented oral argument in the appeal to a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit on January 8, 2014. You can access the oral argument audio via this link (4.67 MB mp3 audio file). The oral argument did not appear to go very well for Teles AG, and on April 4, 2014 the panel unanimously ruled against Teles and affirmed the judgment.

After requesting and obtaining an extension of time, Teles AG on June 9, 2014 filed its petition for rehearing en banc.

In the request for an extension of time to seek rehearing, and in the rehearing petition itself, Shipley now appeared as lead counsel for Teles AG. According to Shipley’s response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to show cause, Teles AG’s rehearing petition filed in the Federal Circuit “was similar to the certiorari petition at issue here” insofar as it was largely written by the client’s non-lawyer CEO. Three Foley & Lardner attorneys appear listed as counsel for Teles AG on the cover and signature line of the rehearing petition.

Although Foley & Lardner has a sizable appellate practice group, many of whom practice in Washington, DC and no doubt many of whom throughout the firm were admitted to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court, Shipley in May 2014 decided to seek admission to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court so that he could serve as counsel of record to Teles AG, if necessary, in seeking further review of the Federal Circuit’s adverse ruling.

After having been admitted to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, Shipley serving as counsel of record filed two cert. petitions on behalf of this client, one in August 2014 and the other in October 2014. You can access the text of both cert. petitions via this link at “Josh Blackman’s Blog.”

The Supreme Court denied review in the first case on October 14, 2014. And the Court denied review in the second case on December 8, 2014, by means of the same Order List containing an order directed to Shipley to show cause “why he should not be sanctioned for his conduct as a member of the Bar of this Court in connection with the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 14-424.”

“In Justices’ Tests on Standing to Sue, Answers Aren’t Always Clear-Cut”: Adam Liptak will have this new installment of his “Sidebar” column in Tuesday’s edition of The New York Times.

“Age issue: Could forcing state judges to retire earlier be prompted more by politics than by any practical concerns?” This editorial appears in today’s edition of The Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World.