The question has produced a handful of ethics opinions, some emotionally charged judicial commentary, and has attracted enough interest that it might some day be the subject of a specific Rule of Professional Conduct. 868 F. Supp. at 1230. The fault with these general arguments against ghost writing, as well as with the arguments supporting the practice, is that the specific circumstances and consequences of each phantom pleading must be considered. As in most other matters of legal ethics, application of an uncompromising rule, applied in an uncritical manner, will yield unjust results frequently, and ethical results purely by accident. Moreover, there are situations in which an ethical attorney will be unwilling to sign any pleading because of consequences completely unrelated to Rule 11.
Litigators are all too keenly aware that the courthouse door swings more easily inward than outward.
Many jurisdictions, including Colorado, take the position that, once having entered an appearance, an attorney is duty-bound to see a matter through to conclusion. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for an attorney's plea to withdraw from a case on the grounds that the client has ceased paying to fall upon deaf or unsympathetic judicial ears. Another common situation in which an attorney may be reluctant to sign on Rule 11's dotted line is when a potential plaintiff comes calling on the eve of the running of the statute of limitations. In such a situation, it is obvious that an attorney cognizant of Rule 11 must not sign the complaint. Another, thornier situation where legal services might be unbundled, are those instances in which insurance defense counsel has been retained by the insurer to provide defense only, even though there are meritorious counterclaims which might and ought to be stated if the insured were in a position to be able to afford full legal representation.