[Note: I have edited the post to correct my error in originally referring to the filing as an amicus brief. I do think the status of the filing as either petition or amicus does have a difference. (h/t: How Appealing) The objective of an amicus brief may be more related to the client's ability to exercise First Amendment rights and " have a say" than we normally expect in petitions, etc. There's been a lot of commentary on this issue and I will try a new round-up.]
Howard Shipley, of Foley & Lardner, responded to the order from SCOTUS that he explain the unorthodox [petition] he had filed on behalf of an apparently demanding and idiosyncratic client in a patent case. The [petition] was jargon-filled, odd in its rhetorical style, and full of super-condensed references. It also suggested that the client was a significant author of the piece -- which SCOTUS guidelines suggest should not be included in briefs.
Shipley's response, available below, politely affirms the right of Shipley to file such [a petition] and suggests that a technical error (i.e., acknowledging the client's participation in the drafting) should not be grounds for sanctions. (h/t: How Appealing)
What I find particularly interesting is the way that Shipley's response, authored by Paul Clement, discusses the balance between the lawyer's duties to the client and to the court.