I'm not sure what your question is, or what the scenario is with "your attorney." If the attorney is merely giving you some guidance, but you're on record as pro per, there is nothing to file. I would also note, however, it's not common. If you're in an unlimited civil case, there is allegedly much at stake, and you should probably consider a "full time," of record attorney. Perhaps most importantly, your current limited representation attorney and your attorney agreement with them should both clearly explain the scope and extent of the legal representation.
The information/answer is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. Consult an attorney regarding your individual situation. This attorney is only licensed to practice law in California. Your question and this answer do not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send/post any confidential information.
You have several options available to you when using unbundled legal services. You can elect to have the attorney enter the litigation as your attorney of record for a limited period of time (if the attorney is willing to do so), or you can keep the attorney behind the scenes, giving you advice and counsel, and ghost writing documents for you. If you want the attorney to appear in court or to take a deposition, you will need to substitute the attorney into the case as your attorney of record.
What you suggest is not yet what I would call common, but it is a far improvement over non-representation. The more time I spend doing litigation, the more complex I realize if really is. Good, experienced attorneys see multiple levels of strategy involved in the process and I have not doubt whatsoever that a non-represented person trying to be their own attorney is going to hurt their case, even if they never know it.
You are thinking in the right direction if you are unwilling or unable to have an attorney of record for the full litigation, your option is better than being completely on your own.
Good luck to you.
This answer should not be construed to create any attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship can be formed only through the mutual execution of an attorney-client agreement. The answer given is based on the extremely limited facts provided and the proper course of action might change significantly with the introduction of other facts. All who read this answer should not rely on the answer to govern their conduct. Please seek the advice of competent counsel after disclosing all facts to that attorney. This answer is intended for California residents only. The answering party is only licensed to practice in the State of California.
I agree with Mr. O'Brien's comments and it is not a common scenario. If you want to show the other side that "you mean business", you are better off hiring legal counsel to take over the case. When I am facing an unrepresented opponent, my normal impression is that they either couldn't afford legal counsel or the case is so weak that they couldn't convince an attorney to take it. Either way, my client almost always has an advantage due to the other side lacking an attorney and it usually has to do with that person lacking knowledge of procedure rules.
Also, I would personally never work in such a limited capacity on a case. I'm either "all in" or not at all. Even a "part time" attorney on a case could face a malpractice lawsuit if something goes wrong.
First, the firm is a debt relief agency according to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We help people file for bankruptcy. We also do other stuff and we do it well, but Congress wants me to post this notice. Second, nothing on this site is legal advice. You are not my client unless you enter into a written agreement signed by you and me.
I am glad that in writing this post you got specific about the services you are thinking of using as part of an "unbundled" services agreement. There are lots of aspects of litigation that can be handled efficiently, economically, and without much risk by an attorney working on a limited task-specific basis. But, deposition is not generally one of those tasks.
Depositions are among the most difficult and strategic of legal skills, even for skilled practitioners. It is very common to see an attorney sitting in a deposition grandly filling the role of potted plant, asking questions that will result in no useful material, or defending against questions with knee-jerk precision based on some generic checklist. It is hard to imagine a pro per doing a worse or less productive job.
In fact, no attorney should sit down in a depo unless and until that attorney knows and can articulate what s/he intends to accomplish. There is a whole list -- several pages long -- of legitimate potential purposes and objectives of a depo, but none of them will be accomplished by a deposing attorney who does not know his/her purpose and objective. A bad depo will hurt your case more than any other single constituent element of your action. A good depo can make all the difference in the outcome as well as the course of the remaining proceedings.
A good depo requires a mastery of the facts of the case, not dropping in to ask questions for show. Of course, if you can retain an attorney to achieve "mastery of the facts of the case" before doing your depo, then that may be a very different story. In truth, however, most unbundled arrangements pre-suppose that the services provided will not require large blocks of time in preparation. Unbundled arrangements tend to be mostly for routine services that can require extensive technical knowledge, but don't require taking responsibility for and executing on fact-specific litigation strategy.
My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice. I give legal advice only in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by individual consultation and execution of a written agreement for legal services.