Limited Scope Representation, Limited Appearance, and Ghostwriting

Why the division of responsibility between an attorney and client doesn’t necessarily determine the lawyer’s status before a tribunal—and how a new Ohio ethics opinion suggests lawyers navigate Civ.R. 3(B).

Whether implicit by the filing of a Complaint or Petition by counsel on behalf of the party, or explicit via a formal Notice of Appearance, status as counsel of record affords privileges and responsibilities to both the attorney and the represented litigant. It puts the court and third parties on notice of the attorney-client relationship, increases the attorney’s accountability to the court and client, and ensures that the attorney receives proper notice of hearing dates and filings. 

Local rules often regulate notices of appearance, withdrawal (in conjunction with Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16), and substitution in the absence of uniform statewide procedure. An exception, however, relates to limited scope representation. In response to 2006 and 2015 task force reports, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted a 2018 amendment to the Civil Rules of Procedure in an effort to “enlarge access to justice in Ohio’s courts.” Civil Rule 3(B) performs two functions: (1) it permits attorneys to enter a limited appearance on behalf of an otherwise unrepresented litigant, and (2) it provides a mechanism for automatic withdrawal for limited appearances:

An attorney’s role may be limited in scope, as authorized by Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c), if that scope is specifically described in a “Notice of Limited Appearance” stating that the limited appearance has been authorized by the party for whom the appearance is made, and filed and served in accordance with Civ.R. 5 prior to or at the time of any such appearance.
The attorney’s limited appearance terminates without the necessity of leave of court, upon the attorney filing a “Notice of Completion of Limited Appearance” filed and served upon all parties, including the party for whom the appearance was made, in accordance with Civ.R. 5.
If there is no objection within ten days of service of this notice, then no entry by the court is necessary for the termination of the limited appearance to take effect. (Emphasis added.)

This Rule allows an attorney to enter an appearance for a discrete aspect of litigation, such as assisting with discovery, mediation, or trial preparation, without necessarily being obligated to appear at trial on the client’s behalf. 

Another form of limited scope representation in litigation involves drafting pleadings, motions, or briefs on behalf of a client who is appearing pro se. Colloquially, this practice is referred to as “ghostwriting,” particularly when the drafting services are not disclosed. A recent nonbinding Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Advisory Opinion addressed this practice in conjunction with Civ. R. 3(B).  

Specifically addressing the drafting of pleadings and filings for pro se litigants, Advisory Opinion 2026-01 advises that individualized drafting assistance for a pro se litigant requires filing the Notice of Limited Appearance contemplated by Ohio Civ. R. 3(B).  

Moreover, by filing the Notice, “a lawyer avoids directly implicating Prof. Cond. R. 3.3(a)(making a false statement of fact to a tribunal), Prof. Cond. R. 4.1(b)(making a false statement of material fact to a third person), and Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c)(engaging in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation) when providing drafting services to a client proceeding pro se.” Compare, however, American Bar Assoc. Formal Opinion 07-446 (May 5, 2007) which concluded, by contrast, that undisclosed drafting for pro se litigants is not a dishonest practice so as to implicate Model Prof. Cond. R. 8.4(c). 

The Board further distinguishes individualized drafting services from the provision of standard legal template forms and suggests that providing those forms as standardized materials does not require disclosure or compliance with Civ. R. 3(B). 

Finally, while the Advisory Opinion clarifies that it is not within the Board’s purview to analyze whether Ohio Civ.R. 11 could be applied against a ghostwriting attorney, the Board suggests that attorneys ensure that the drafts provided to pro se litigants have a good-faith basis, are not submitted for the purpose of delay, and are not otherwise scandalous or inappropriate. This is consistent with the Board’s 2020 Limited Scope Representation Ethics Guide. (Please review the Guide’s appendix for sample limited representation forms.) 

In providing drafting services to a client appearing pro se in civil litigation, attorneys should discuss the client’s responsibility for filing the document and meeting deadlines, along with counseling the client regarding Civ.R. 11 and R.C. 2323.51. Using the forms in the Limited Scope Ethics Guide can clarify the duties of the attorney and those of the client. We suggest that drafting attorneys maintain clear records of the files and drafts provided to the client. 

For more on ethics guidance related to unbundled or limited scope legal services, the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Delivery of Legal Services provides a compilation of ethics opinions. 

OBLIC policyholders can contact the Loss Prevention Hotline for guidance on limited scope engagements and other professional responsibility questions.

This information is made available solely for loss prevention purposes, which may include claim prevention techniques designed to minimize the likelihood of incurring a claim for legal malpractice. This information does not establish, report, or create the standard of care for attorneys. The material is not a complete analysis of the topic and should not be construed as providing legal advice. Please conduct your own appropriate legal research in this area. If you have questions about this email’s content and are an OBLIC policyholder, please contact us using the information above.