May an Ohio lawyer draft pleadings for a pro se litigant without disclosing the lawyer's involvement to the court or opposing counsel?

Plain-English summary

The opinion distinguishes undisclosed ghostwriting from a disclosed limited-scope representation. A lawyer may agree under Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) to perform discrete services, including drafting a complaint, answer, or other case document that the client will sign and file while handling the rest of the litigation pro se. In Ohio civil litigation, however, Civ.R. 3(B) requires the lawyer to file and serve a notice of limited appearance describing the services and, when the work is finished, a notice of completion.

The Board concludes that the Civ.R. 3(B) notice removes the traditional ethics concerns associated with ghostwriting. By appearing on a limited basis and disclosing the arrangement, the lawyer avoids directly implicating the duties concerning false statements to a tribunal, false statements of material fact to others, obedience to tribunal rules, and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

The Board declines to decide whether limited-scope drafting violates Civ.R. 11 because its advisory authority does not extend to interpreting that rule. It states that neither Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) nor Civ.R. 3(B) requires the drafting lawyer to sign the client's pleading in addition to filing the limited-appearance notice. Because Ohio courts have not addressed Civ.R. 11 in this setting, the opinion advises lawyers to assess whether the arrangement circumvents the rule and to counsel the client about its requirements and consequences.

A different result applies when the lawyer merely provides a standardized legal form, defined as a prewritten template with fixed language and blanks or limited fields for the user to complete. The Board concludes that providing such a form for the pro se litigant's completion, signature, and filing does not implicate Civ.R. 3's notice requirement.

In practice

Under this opinion, customized drafting of a pleading or other case document for a pro se litigant in active Ohio civil litigation is a permissible limited-scope representation when reasonable, communicated to the client, and accompanied by the notice of limited appearance required by Civ.R. 3(B). The lawyer files a notice of completion when the agreed services end.

The opinion treats the provision of a standardized form differently. A lawyer may give a pro se litigant a fixed legal template to complete and file without notifying the court or opposing counsel of the lawyer's involvement.

Common questions

Q: Can an Ohio lawyer ghostwrite a complaint for a pro se litigant without appearing?

A: The opinion permits the drafting service as a limited-scope representation, but Ohio Civ.R. 3(B) requires the lawyer to file and serve a notice of limited appearance identifying the scope of the services. The lawyer must later file a notice of completion.

Q: Must the lawyer sign the pleading drafted for the client?

A: The Board states that neither Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) nor Civ.R. 3(B) requires the lawyer who files the limited-appearance notice also to sign the pleading intended for the pro se litigant's signature and filing.

Q: Does the opinion decide whether ghostwriting violates Civ.R. 11?

A: No. The Board declines to interpret Civ.R. 11 because that question lies outside its advisory-opinion authority. It notes that Ohio courts have not addressed Civ.R. 11 in this context and discusses the precautions stated in the opinion.

Q: Does giving a pro se litigant a standardized court form require a limited appearance?

A: No. The opinion concludes that giving a fixed, prewritten form with blanks or limited fields for the litigant to complete, sign, and file does not trigger Civ.R. 3's notice requirement.

Background and rules framework

Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) allows a reasonable limited-scope representation when communicated to the client, preferably in writing. Civ.R. 3(B) requires a notice of limited appearance and a later notice of completion for limited legal assistance in civil litigation. Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) requires compliance with tribunal rules, while Rules 3.3(a), 4.1(b), and 8.4(c) address false statements, dishonesty, and misrepresentation.

The opinion identifies Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 and 1.3 as applicable competence and diligence rules. It discusses Civ.R. 11 but does not interpret it, and it cites R.C. 2323.51 concerning frivolous conduct in civil filings.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.1 / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.1 (competence)
• Model Rule 1.2(c) / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) (limited scope)
• Model Rule 1.3 / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (diligence)
• Model Rule 3.3(a) / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a) (candor to the tribunal)
• Model Rule 3.4(c) / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c) (obeying tribunal rules)
• Model Rule 4.1(b) / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 4.1(b) (statements to others)
• Model Rule 8.4(c) / Ohio Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (dishonesty and misrepresentation)

Court rules and statutes:

• Ohio Civ.R. 3(B) (notice of limited appearance and completion)
• Ohio Civ.R. 11 (signing pleadings and filings)
• Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.51 (frivolous conduct in civil claims)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 07-446 (2007): undisclosed legal assistance to pro se litigants
• Arizona Opinion 34 (2009): definition of ghostwriting

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 07-446: Undisclosed Assistance to Pro Se Litigants
• TN BPR Ethics Op. 2025-F-172: Limited-Scope Representation Notice
• NC State Bar 2008 FEO 3: Assisting a Pro Se Litigant
• NJ ACPE Ethics Op. 713: Unbundled Legal Services

Source

• Opinion index: https://ohioadvop.org/2026-2/
• Original PDF: https://ohioadvop.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Adv.-Op.-2026-01-Board-Final.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

OPINION 2026-01
Issued April 10, 2026

Limited Scope Representation Through the Drafting of Pleadings for Pro Se Litigants

SYLLABUS: A lawyer, providing legal services through a limited scope representation,
may engage in the drafting of pleadings and other case documents for a client proceeding
pro se in litigation when the lawyer files a notice of limited appearance pursuant to Civ.R.

3. Lawyers may provide standardized form legal documents to clients proceeding pro se
   in litigation without giving notice to opposing counsel or courts.

This nonbinding advisory opinion is issued by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct
in response to a prospective or hypothetical question regarding the application of
ethics rules applicable to Ohio judges and lawyers. The Ohio Board of Professional
Conduct is solely responsible for the content of this advisory opinion, and the advice
contained in this opinion does not reflect and should not be construed as reflecting the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Questions regarding this advisory opinion
should be directed to the staff of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.

Page 2

                          THOMAS J. MOYER OHIO JUDICIAL CENTER
                65 SOUTH FRONT STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-3431
                                       614.387.9370
                                    www.bpc.ohio.gov




                                 OPINION 2026-01
                                Issued April 10, 2026

Limited Scope Representation Through the Drafting of Pleadings for Pro Se Litigants

SYLLABUS: A lawyer, providing legal services through a limited scope representation,
may engage in the drafting of pleadings and other case documents for a client proceeding
pro se in litigation when the lawyer files a notice of limited appearance pursuant to Civ.R.

3. Lawyers may provide standardized form legal documents to clients proceeding pro se
   in litigation without giving notice to opposing counsel or courts.

APPLICABLE RULES: Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, and 8.4.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

   1).     Whether a lawyer may engage in “ghostwriting” for pro se litigants without

disclosing the lawyer’s involvement to either the court and/or opposing counsel during
active litigation.

  2).    Whether a lawyer may provide standardized form legal documents,

pleadings, and other court filings for pro se litigants without disclosing the lawyer’s
involvement to either the court and/or opposing counsel during active litigation.

   3).    Whether a lawyer violates Civ.R. 11 when engaging in “ghostwriting.”

ANALYSIS:

   “Ghostwriting,” as defined by other jurisdictions, consists of a lawyer providing

legal services, typically through the drafting of pleadings or other case documents, to a
pro se litigant, when the lawyer’s identity will not be disclosed to the court, the lawyer
will not make a formal appearance in the litigation, and the lawyer will not sign the
pleadings or case documents filed with the court. See, e.g., Az. Op. 34 (June 24, 2009). The
Rules of Professional Conduct and the Civil Rules of Procedure do not expressly permit
“ghostwriting” in the manner described above. Lawyers, may, however, provide limited

Page 3

Op. 2026-01 2

legal services to pro se litigants if reasonable under the circumstances and communicated
to the client, preferably in writing, and otherwise referred to as “limited scope
representation.” Prof.Cond.R 1.2(c). Limited scope representation permits a lawyer and
client to agree to discrete services that will be provided by the lawyer with other
necessary tasks left to be performed by the client proceeding pro se. Drafting services
provided by a lawyer to the client with the intention the lawyer will not sign and file a
pleading or other case document is a type of permissible limited scope representation.
For example, a lawyer and client might agree that the lawyer will only draft the complaint
or answer for a civil lawsuit, while the client will sign and file the pleading, make all court
appearances, engage in discovery, and participate in settlement negotiations.

Notice of Limited Appearance – Civ.R. 3(B)

       Litigants always retain the right to represent themselves in legal proceedings.

When exercising this right, pro se litigants may choose to seek legal advice or limited
litigation assistance from a lawyer. Unless there is a specific law or procedural rule, as in
Ohio, that mandates disclosure, pro se litigants are not obligated to reveal to the court or
opposing parties that they have received legal assistance from a lawyer. See ABA Op. 07-
446 (May 5, 2007).

       The Supreme Court adopted amendments to the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure on

July 1, 2018 to better enable lawyers assisting clients in need of some, but not all, of the
legal services typically required to litigate a civil case. The amendments were drafted in
response to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Access to Justice Task Force recommendation to
increase the availability of lawyers willing to provide limited scope representation to
clients wishing to proceed in a matter pro se. 1

       Lawyers, even when providing legal services in a limited scope representation, are

required to obey the rules of a tribunal. Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c). The 2018 amendment to
Civ.R. 3(B) mandates that a lawyer retained to assist a pro se litigant through a limited
scope representation file a notice of limited appearance, served upon all parties and
counsel, that includes the scope of services the lawyer is providing to the pro se litigant.
When the services have been completed, the lawyer is required to file a notice of

1
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/Publications/accessJustice/finalReport.pdf (Retrieved April 5, 2026).

Page 4

Op. 2026-01 3

completion of limited appearance that permits the lawyer to withdraw from the matter
without seeking leave of court. Civ.R. 3(B).

   A lawyer’s use of a notice of limited appearance removes the ethical concerns that

are traditionally associated with “ghostwriting” by lawyers. By formally appearing in
litigation on a permissible and limited basis, with full disclosure to the court, parties, and
opposing counsel pursuant to Civ.R. 3, 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.

Civ.R. 11

   The Board cannot directly address the question whether providing drafting

services to pro se litigants constitutes a Civ.R. 11 violation because the Board’s advisory
opinion authority is limited to questions concerning the Rules of Professional Conduct,
the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Rules for the Government of the Bar and Judiciary.
Gov.Bar R. V(2(D). However, neither Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(c) nor Civ.R. 3(B) requires the
drafting lawyer who files a notice of limited appearance to also sign any pleading or other
filing in addition to the pro se litigant.

   The Board is unaware of any Ohio state court interpretation of Civ.R. 11 that

requires a lawyer to sign a pleading that the lawyer drafted but intended to be signed
and filed only by the pro se litigant. Because Ohio state courts have not yet addressed the
application of Civ. R. 11 in the context of limited scope representation, attorneys should
assess whether providing limited drafting services in compliance with Prof.Cond.R.
1.2(c) and Civ.R. 3(B) is being undertaken to circumvent the requirements of Civ.R. 11.
Given the lack of judicial guidance, the Board advises lawyers preparing documents for
filing by pro se litigants to generally adhere to Civ.R. 11. This includes ensuring that
filings are supported by good cause, are not submitted for purposes of delay, and do not
contain scandalous or inappropriate content. This practice can assist in preventing the
imposition of sanctions against pro se litigants who are subject to Civ.R. 11 when signing
pleadings drafted by a lawyer. Lawyers should counsel a pro se client about Civ.R. 11
and the consequences of violating the rule. See also R.C. 2323.51 (frivolous conduct in
filing civil claims.)

Page 5

Op. 2026-01 4

Providing Standardized Legal Forms to Pro Se Clients

   Some lawyers who provide legal services in a limited scope representation,

particularly in the legal services sector, provide standardized legal forms for completion
and filing to pro se clients and other persons. For the purposes of this advisory opinion,
a “standardized legal form” is a prewritten legal document template with fixed,
standardized language, that includes blanks or limited fields to be filled by the filing
party to litigation. The use of standardized legal forms is widespread, and the forms are
readily available to clients and others from a multitude of sources, including the Internet
and even courts. Lawyers are permitted to provide standardized legal forms to clients
proceeding pro se, or to other individuals, and may also direct such clients or individuals
to resources that supply these forms.

   The widespread use of standardized legal forms raises the question whether a

lawyer’s provision of a standardized legal form to a pro se litigant requires the lawyer to
file a notice of limited appearance under Civ.R. 3. The Board suggests that providing a
standardized legal form to a pro se litigant for his or her completion, signature, and filing,
does not implicate the notice requirements contemplated by Civ.R. 3.