having to make legal decisions.” In re Guttierez, 248 B.R. 287, 295 (Bankr. W.D.Tex.2000). See also, Board of Education of Worthington v. Board of Revision, 85 Ohio St.3d 156, 707 N.E.2d 499 (1999) (corporate vice-president who prepared, signed, and filed complaint engaged in the unauthorized practice of law). The fact that Mr. Bruno also signed the petition as a non-lawyer bankruptcy petition preparer does not give him any protection from this conclusion. Bankruptcy Code § 110 permits a lay person to assist another person with ministerial acts such as typing a petition. It does not authorize a non-lawyer to give substantive advice and counsel about the bankruptcy process or otherwise to engage in the practice of law. In re Walker, 257 B.R. 493, (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2001); In re Guttierez (<HOLDING>). Similarly, Bankruptcy Rule 9010 does not
holding that a state is immune by virtue of 11 usc  106c from money damages for violating the automatic stay provision of 11 usc  362a holding that a confirmed chapter 13 plan is binding on all parties under 11 usc  1327a however the plan may be modified pursuant to 11 usc  1329 holding that a nonlawyer petition preparer had overstepped the bounds of 11 usc  110 holding that the definition of debtors principal residence in 11 usc  10113aa does not operate to extend the antimodification provision of 11 usc  1322b to structures that are not real property holding that chapter 13 debtor lacked standing under 11 usc  548 but finding limited authority for the debtor to avoid a transfer under 11 usc  522h