There is no way of knowing how many, and for how long, lawyers and nonlawyers have engaged in ghostwriting pleadings to assist pro se litigants — indigent or nonindigent. It is reasonable to assume that many lawyers and others have acted as ghostwriters in order to facilitate greater access to the court, rather than for personal gain. Despite the laudable motives of ghostwriters, ghostwriting has historically been considered an illegitimate form of unbundling legal services because of the spate of federal court opinions opposing the practice on ethical and Rule 11-violation grounds. This article addresses the current anomalous situation in which federal courts, on the one hand, and the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility and a growing number of state high courts and ethics committees, on the other hand, diverge in their opinions regarding the propriety of ghostwriting.
Goldschmidt, Jona. Ghosting: It’s Time To Find Uniformity on Ghostwriting. Judicature, 102, 3: 37-48, 2018. Retrieved from Loyola eCommons, Criminal Justice & Criminology: Faculty Publications & Other Works,
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
© Bolch Judicial Institute 2018
Author Posting. © Bolch Judicial Institute 2018. This article is posted here by permission of Duke Law for personal use, not for redistribution. The article was published in Judicature, 2018, https://judicialstudies.duke.edu/editions/fall-winter-2018/