It is popularly claimed that R. Nattan Adler, the mentor of the Hattam Soffer, was of the opinion that the Oral Law may only be written to avoid it being forgotten, and he, who would remember it anyway, was not permitted to write it. (Cf. for example Yalkut Yossef: Pesukei D'zimra V'kriat Sh'ma; notes to chapter 49).
One can certainly question how compelling this argument is, given that writing is a crucial way of conveying information to future generations, but regardless a very similar statement is actually made by his student Hattam Soffer, in a responsum to R. Ts'vi Hirsch Hajes (Vol. I OH #280):
מלבד שהוא עובר איסור דאורייתא דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לכותבן ולא הותר אלא משום עת לעשות לה' [כגיטין ס' ע"א] ואם איננו עושה לה' הרי איסורו במקומו עומד.
He writes that one who publishes a work with ulterior motives, violates the injunction against recording the Oral Law, which is only permitted for one with the intention of acting for the sake of God.
However, it is important to note, that while he does indeed indicates that the prohibition is still active, and is merely held in abeyance by appropriate exceptions, this statement is made in the somewhat flowery beginning of the responsum, and not as part of an involved halakhic discussion.
Furthermore, it is certainly a minority view. As many have noted (e.g. Hakham Faur S"t in Golden Doves With Silver Dots p. 102), Rambam omits this rule entirely from his halakhic writings, (referencing it only as a historical practice in Moreh Nevokhim I:71) indicating that it is no longer a concern, if it ever was.
The, the mainstream approach in poskim is to assume as a matter of fact that the prohibition is totally obsolete today, and it is thus not generally invoked in halakhic works. Like Rambam, the Tur and the Shulhan Arukh, for example, only mention the issue of reciting the Written Law orally, but not the issue of writing the Oral Law.
