Ward, Sherman, and if the story is true, another third party with no known identity. The fact that the story was copyrighted is strong indication that future gain was anticipated in the publishing of the pamphlet. Unless there was some sort of a contact insuring a division of of these future gains then Ward would have been the only person with legal representation/proof of his rights to these gains. The fact that pamphlet went through the copyright process is favorable to the "publication for profit" notion, or the dime novel theory. However, the copyright could have also been pursued as a legal means of establishing where the original tale came from in the event of future legal actions in seeking a portion of any recovery, though this certainly wouldn't have provided any guarantees of collection and it still would have only legally placed Ward in that position should it arise, unless of course, there was prior contract in existence between Ward and parties unknown. So what I'm getting at here is this; if this wasn't just a simple case of publication for profit, and there actually was some sort of an agreement between Ward and parties unknown, then a lawyer would have to have been involved.
The story, the portion where the unknown author is interviewing Morriss, it is laid out much in the same proceedings as a lawyer and a potential client discuss and arrange for possible representation. "If" this was the actual case, then your unknown author was most likely a lawyer. Add to this this that in the basic scheme of things, Morriss was actually in the position of being the executor of wills if his agreed services were ever required. As we read the story it was, in the event that Morriss was unable to fulfill his duties, he was then to find another acceptable party to place that trust in, and who better then a lawyer?
A lawyer would have had all the resources and knowledge to have arranged the Beale Pamphlet, and, it could have also been required in order to draw out any potential parties since C3 wasn't solvable and without solution. And, given the nature of the business it would have also been in everyone's best interest if the lawyer remained unknown until a positive response in connection to the story was encountered. This would explain Ward and the possible alternate reason for the copyright.
One has to remember, that even in 1885, if a recovery was made, and due to the fact that pamphlet story established true owners, even if their names were not fully know, then that money would have gone into trust until all possible resources in identifying the rightful owners and their heirs had been exhausted, and just imagine the claims that would likely come forward 50 to 100 years after the fact. So "yes" there was certainly need for an informed lawyer in the event that the story actually lead to a recovery. So, "if" the story was true, the who would have likely been the unknown author? Perhaps, "a lawyer". And if it was a lawyer then we know he conducted important in Richmond, which also makes sense that he would. Hence, has anyone else searched the legal resources/court documents in search of a suspect?