No Pro Se Representation of Others and Heightened Gatekeeping of Extraordinary Writs: Commentary on the Supreme Court of Ohio’s October 1, 2025 Case Announcements

Introduction

On October 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a docket-wide set of case announcements culminating in two slip opinions and a series of dispositive orders resolving dozens of original actions and appeals. The Court’s actions collectively reinforce several procedural and substantive themes in Ohio practice:

Strict gatekeeping in extraordinary-writ litigation (mandamus, prohibition, and procedendo)—with most cases dismissed on the pleadings or for mootness, and only a handful proceeding via alternative writs.
A clear enforcement posture against the unauthorized practice of law (UPL), including striking filings by a nonlawyer, prohibiting further nonlawyer filings on behalf of others, and referral to the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
A disciplined approach to sealing and record integrity, marked by denials of requests to seal briefs and to supplement the appellate record, while permitting a targeted sealing of evidence in a live original action.
A forthcoming statewide clarification in criminal appellate practice, with acceptance of a certified conflict on whether the prosecution may appeal as of right under R.C. 2945.67 when a trial court strikes an elevating allegation, or must instead seek leave under App.R. 5.

The announcements also document an ongoing jurisprudential dialogue within the Court about when to issue alternative writs versus dismiss at the pleading stage, reflected in repeated separate opinions referencing the Chief Justice’s dissent in State ex rel. Jordan v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-3051.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court issued two merit decisions with opinions and numerous merit decisions without opinions and procedural rulings:

State ex rel. Rankin v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4483: The Court unanimously denied a motion to strike the appellees’ merit brief and affirmed the lower court’s judgment.
State ex rel. T.B. v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-4484: In a combined prohibition/mandamus action, the Court granted respondents’ motion to file evidence under seal and denied the requested writs.
Extraordinary-writ docket: More than two dozen mandamus, prohibition, and procedendo actions were dismissed—typically on motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, sometimes on mootness—with occasional dissents urging issuance of alternative writs.
Unauthorized practice and appellate jurisdiction: In Lahti v. Harris (BTA No. 2025-221), the Court granted a motion to dismiss under R.C. 5717.04 for lack of jurisdiction, struck nonlawyer filings submitted on behalf of another, prohibited further such filings in the Supreme Court, and referred the matter to the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Sealing and record discipline: Multiple motions to seal memoranda in Schaible v. Schaible were denied; a motion to supplement the record in Wells Fargo v. Doberdruk was also denied. Conversely, sealing was permitted in T.B. v. Brown for evidence, showing a targeted, case-specific approach.
Upcoming guidance for criminal appeals: In State v. Burrell, the Court accepted a certified conflict and ordered briefing on whether the prosecution has an appeal of right under R.C. 2945.67 when a trial court strikes an allegation that elevates offense level, or must instead seek leave under App.R. 5. The case was consolidated with a related matter.
Certified questions declined: The Court declined to answer certified state-law questions from the Southern District of Ohio in OCLC, Inc. v. Anna’s Archive.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Referenced

R.C. 5717.04 (Lahti v. Harris): Governs appeals from the Board of Tax Appeals to the Supreme Court, including jurisdictional requirements. The Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, struck nonlawyer filings made on behalf of another, prohibited further such filings, and referred the matter for UPL review—an emphatic enforcement of jurisdictional and representation rules.
R.C. 2945.67 and App.R. 5 (State v. Burrell): The Court accepted a conflict to decide whether the State may immediately appeal, as of right, a pretrial order striking an elevating allegation, or whether the State must seek leave to appeal. Resolution will harmonize inconsistent appellate approaches statewide.
State v. Skala, 2002-Ohio-2962 (8th Dist.): Identified by the Court of Appeals as the conflict case in Burrell. The Supreme Court will address the conflict framed against Skala’s rule, providing uniformity on prosecution appeal rights.
State ex rel. Jordan v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2025-Ohio-3051: Several separate opinions cite the Chief Justice’s dissent to favor issuing alternative writs rather than immediate dismissal in certain original actions. These references frame an ongoing internal discussion about when a complaint warrants record development under an alternative writ.
S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05: Cited in schedules issued with alternative writs in State ex rel. Sandy v. Spatny and State ex rel. Quinn v. Rastatter. The rule sets deadlines for submitting evidence and briefing in original actions once an alternative writ issues.
Public-Access and Sealing Framework: While not expressly cited, the Court’s mixed rulings—denying motions to seal memoranda in Schaible, allowing sealed evidence in T.B. v. Brown—are consistent with Ohio’s general presumption of public access subject to narrowly tailored sealing upon a sufficient showing.
Vexatious Litigator Statute (R.C. 2323.52): Not cited in the announcements but implicated by repeated requests or suggestions to declare litigants vexatious. The Court’s reluctance to grant such relief without a dedicated process underscores due-process safeguards in such designations.

Legal Reasoning and Themes

1) Extraordinary Writs: A Strong Gatekeeping Posture

The Court dismissed the overwhelming majority of original actions at the pleading stage or on procedural grounds. This reflects the well-settled principle that mandamus, prohibition, and procedendo are extraordinary remedies, available only when a relator demonstrates a clear legal right, a clear legal duty (for mandamus/procedendo), or a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction (for prohibition), and no adequate remedy at law. Many entries explicitly grant motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings—procedural vehicles signaling that, even taken at face value, the petitions did not meet the stringent standards for extraordinary relief or were otherwise mooted.

The Court’s approach is not monolithic. In a small number of cases—State ex rel. Sandy v. Spatny and State ex rel. Quinn v. Rastatter—the Court sua sponte issued alternative writs, triggering the S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05 schedule for evidence and briefs. Those orders indicate that when a complaint plausibly pleads entitlement to extraordinary relief, the Court will develop a record prior to ruling. The frequent separate opinions citing the Chief Justice’s dissent in Jordan highlight an ongoing intra-court conversation about when to issue alternative writs rather than dismiss on the pleadings in certain categories of cases (e.g., public-records claims, inmate-related claims).

2) Unauthorized Practice of Law and Appellate Jurisdiction: Lahti v. Harris

Lahti v. Harris is the clearest signal in this issuance about representation and filing integrity. The Court:

Granted a motion to dismiss under R.C. 5717.04 for lack of jurisdiction in a Board of Tax Appeals matter;
Struck, sua sponte, all filings submitted by a nonlawyer on behalf of another (except the notice of appeal), and prohibited further nonlawyer filings on behalf of others in the Supreme Court;
Directed the Clerk to refer the matter to the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law for investigation.

The order underscores two bedrock rules: only licensed attorneys may represent others in court filings, and the Supreme Court strictly enforces jurisdictional requirements for appeals—especially in BTA cases where statutory compliance is a threshold to the Court’s authority to adjudicate. The referral to the UPL board signals that such conduct carries consequences beyond case-specific dismissal.

3) Vexatious Litigator Designations: Caution and Process

Multiple entries raise the prospect of declaring relators “vexatious litigators.” The Court denied such requests (e.g., State ex rel. Souare v. Daughtery), while some justices would have declared a litigant vexatious sua sponte (e.g., separate opinions by Justice Fischer in certain matters). This divergence underscores two points:

Designation is a significant restraint implicating due process;
The Court generally prefers a properly noticed vehicle and record before imposing the sweeping filing restrictions that attach under R.C. 2323.52.

4) Sealing, Record Supplementation, and Filing Integrity

The Court took a nuanced view:

It denied motions to seal memoranda in Schaible v. Schaible (with three justices dissenting), reinforcing the presumption of public access to court records absent a compelling, narrowly tailored justification.
It denied a motion to supplement the record in Wells Fargo Bank v. Doberdruk (with three justices dissenting in part), hewing to the principle that the Supreme Court reviews the record as certified by the lower court and that supplementation is exceptional.
It granted a motion to file evidence under seal in State ex rel. T.B. v. Brown, illustrating that sealing is available when targeted and justified (for evidence as opposed to party briefing).
In North Canton Dept. of Dev. Servs. v. CF Homes, L.L.C., it struck a noncompliant merit brief but allowed refiling, without substantive changes, within 14 days—emphasizing compliance with the Rules of Practice while preserving the merits.

5) Forthcoming Clarification of Prosecution Appeals: State v. Burrell

The Court accepted a certified conflict (and consolidated a companion case) to decide whether the State may pursue an appeal as of right under R.C. 2945.67 when a trial court pretrial order strikes an elevating allegation (e.g., a prior conviction that increases the offense level), or whether the State must instead seek leave under App.R. 5. The conflict reference to State v. Skala (8th Dist.) sets the stage for a decision that will unify appellate practice statewide on a recurring prosecutorial right of appeal. The outcome will affect charging strategies, mid-case appellate posture, and trial-court case management in criminal matters.

6) Mootness and Adequate Remedies: Common Disposition Grounds

Several matters ended on mootness (e.g., LifeWise, Inc. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.; State ex rel. Cook v. Summit Cty. Clerk of Courts) or because an adequate remedy at law existed. These outcomes reflect enduring limits on extraordinary writs and the broader principle that such relief is not a substitute for ordinary appellate or trial-court remedies.

Impact

Representation and Filing Practice: Lahti v. Harris sends a clear message—nonlawyers may not file on behalf of others in the Supreme Court. Violations risk not just case-specific sanctions (striking and dismissal) but referral for UPL proceedings. Entities and individuals must ensure proper counsel or risk jurisdictional defects and sanctions.
Extraordinary Writ Strategy: The Court’s pronounced tendency to dismiss at the pleading stage, coupled with selective issuance of alternative writs, advises relators to plead with precision, demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy at law, and be prepared for early dispositive motions. The Jordan-related dissents provide a roadmap for arguments favoring alternative writs in appropriate cases.
Sealing and Public Access: Parties should not assume that sensitive subject matter will justify sealing of briefs; a particularized showing is required. However, targeted sealing of evidentiary material may be granted upon a sufficient, narrowly tailored showing.
Criminal Appeals: The forthcoming Burrell decision will guide prosecutors and trial courts on whether and how the State may immediately appeal pretrial orders that remove sentence-enhancing allegations. Until then, litigants should preserve both appeal-of-right and leave-to-appeal pathways where feasible.
Vexatious Litigators: The Court’s reluctance to sua sponte impose vexatious-litigant status underscores the need for a proper vehicle and due process. Parties seeking such designations should pursue them via the statutory framework, with notice, evidence, and findings tailored to R.C. 2323.52.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandamus: An order compelling a public officer or body to perform a clear legal duty when the relator has a clear legal right to the performance and no adequate remedy at law (e.g., ordinary appeal).
Prohibition: An order preventing a court or official from exercising jurisdiction it patently and unambiguously lacks.
Procedendo: An order directing a lower court to proceed to judgment without dictating the outcome; commonly used to remedy undue delay.
Alternative Writ: An initial order in an original action directing the respondent to act or show cause, coupled with a schedule for evidence and briefing. It signals that the complaint is sufficiently plausible to warrant record development before a merits decision.
Peremptory Writ: A final, immediate writ issued when the right to relief is clear; often contrasted with an alternative writ that precedes full merits determination.
Vexatious Litigator: A designation under R.C. 2323.52 restricting a person’s ability to file new lawsuits without leave of court, imposed after due process (notice and opportunity to be heard).
Sealing of Court Records: Because court records are presumed public, a party seeking to seal must show a compelling interest and tailor the seal narrowly. The Court may allow sealed evidence even when it denies sealing of briefs.
Appeal of Right vs. Discretionary (Leave) Appeal: An appeal of right may be filed without prior permission based on statutory authorization; a leave appeal requires permission (e.g., under App.R. 5). Burrell will address which pathway applies to certain State appeals in criminal cases.
Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL): It is UPL for nonlawyers to represent others in court filings. Courts can strike such filings, prohibit future violations, and refer matters to the UPL board for investigation and potential sanctions.

Selected Case Highlights

State ex rel. Rankin v. State, 2025-Ohio-4483: Motion to strike appellees’ merit brief denied; judgment affirmed (unanimous).
State ex rel. T.B. v. Brown, 2025-Ohio-4484: Sealed filing of evidence allowed; writs of prohibition and mandamus denied (unanimous).
Lahti v. Harris (BTA No. 2025-221): Dismissal under R.C. 5717.04; nonlawyer filings (on behalf of another) stricken; future such filings prohibited; referral to the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law; lack of jurisdiction (unanimous).
State ex rel. Sandy v. Spatny and State ex rel. Quinn v. Rastatter: Alternative writs granted sua sponte; S.Ct.Prac.R. 12.05 schedules issued. In Sandy, Justice Fischer would have dismissed.
State v. Burrell (Nos. 2025-0952 and 2025-0962): Certified conflict accepted; consolidated; briefing ordered on the State’s right to appeal pretrial orders striking elevating allegations—appeal of right under R.C. 2945.67 vs. leave under App.R. 5; conflict case identified as State v. Skala (8th Dist.).
OCLC, Inc. v. Anna’s Archive: Certified questions of state law declined under Rule 9.05(B); two justices dissented.
North Canton Dept. of Dev. Servs. v. CF Homes, L.L.C.: Appellant’s noncompliant merit brief struck; refile permitted without substantive changes within 14 days; briefing deadlines unaffected—an illustration of rigorous but measured enforcement of practice rules.
Schaible v. Schaible (two entries): Motions to seal memoranda denied in separate appeals; three justices dissented—highlighting the Court’s general presumption of openness.
State ex rel. Souare v. Daughtery and McDougald v. Bur. of Sentence Computation: Dismissals entered; the Court declined to declare the relators vexatious litigators (with separate opinions suggesting otherwise), reflecting caution in imposing R.C. 2323.52 restrictions.
Norman v. Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.: Request for preliminary injunctive relief denied in a mandamus action; motions to dismiss granted; cause dismissed—confirming that mandamus is not a vehicle for injunctive relief absent the statutory/writ prerequisites.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s October 1, 2025 announcements—and the two companion slip opinions—underscore a consistent, disciplined approach to Ohio appellate and original-action practice:

Extraordinary writs remain truly extraordinary; the Court will dismiss early unless the pleading shows a clear entitlement or warrants an alternative writ for record development.
The Court will vigilantly police representation rules, striking nonlawyer filings made on behalf of others, barring future such filings in the Supreme Court, and referring potential UPL to the appropriate board.
Transparency and record integrity are paramount: sealing must be justified and narrowly tailored; the Supreme Court will rarely permit supplementation of the record certified below; noncompliant briefing will be stricken and required to be refiled in conformity with the Rules of Practice.
A major clarification is forthcoming for criminal practice: State v. Burrell will harmonize whether prosecutors proceed by appeal of right under R.C. 2945.67 or by leave under App.R. 5 when challenging pretrial orders striking elevating allegations.

Collectively, the announcements signal to practitioners and parties that precision in pleading, strict adherence to procedural rules, proper representation, and thoughtful, narrowly tailored motions are not just best practices—they are essential to obtain review and relief in the Supreme Court of Ohio.