Legal Question in Business Law in California

The court itself will treat your "attorney of record" as the full-time responsible person for the entire case, but you and your attorney are free, within the limits of the attorney's ethical duty to provide competent legal services, to work out deals where you do some of the work. I would advise you to rely heavily on your attorney in designing the claims of your complaint.

You case does not appear to be one where an attorney could limit the scope of his representation. Everything from this point forward is litigation or in anticipation of litigation. From your previous questions it appears that you are having a hard time getting things rolling. I find it hard to believe that you are going to find an attorney that is going to let you drive the case and just show up when you have a court appearance. As Mr. Whipple mentioned, the attorney is ultimately responsible for the case. Any attorney is going to have to worry about his professional reputation, properly prosecuting your case and legal malpractice. Even if you were to find a lawyer who agreed to limit the scope of his representation there is probably very little that would not be included under "litigation." No attorney is going act as a figurehead as you essentially move forward pro per.

You didn't believe me the first two times I explained this to you? Since this is a publicly searchable question, for the sake of anyone else who comes across it, here is what I already told you last week:

A corporation cannot represent itself in pro per, or pro se by appearing through an officer, director or employee. Caressa Camille, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1101�1103. This is because a corporation is a separate legal person, and so any person who appears in court, or does work that requires a license to practice law, on its behalf is providing legal representation to another person. Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 730; the fact that the individual representing the corporation is 100% shareholder doesn't change that. California Business and Professions Code sections 6125 et. seq. prohibit the unauthorized practice of law, and make it a crime. Penal Code section 31 makes aiding and abetting commission of a crime, a crime itself. The State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 1-120 and 1-300, make it a violation, subject to discipline up to and including disbarment, to aid in a violation of the State Bar Act (of which Bus. and Prof. Code sections 6125, et. seq. are a part). By definition, limited scope representation involves the client performing legal services for themselves, which a corporation cannot do. If the lawyer performs all the work and takes responsibility for all aspects of the case that requires a license to practice law, then it is not limited scope representation. Furthermore, the client could never file papers that the attorney did not sign. By signing papers submitted to court, the attorney takes responsibility for them procedurally and substantively, and the attorney can be sanctioned and disciplined for any violation of laws or rules that the papers might contain. That is why no attorney can offer limited scope representation to a corporation.

With that said, however, any good attorney who represents small businesses, such as myself, knows how to keep the costs of representation down by letting the client do as much of the work as possible without crossing the line. There is a great deal of legal work that can be done by paralegals under an attorney's supervision, and a great deal of litigation work that is not practicing law. Anything an attorney could have a paralegal do, including drafts of legal documents, evidence gathering, and so on, the attorney can allow the client to do as long as the attorney provides appropriate supervision and finalizes and signs off on everything. Ultimately, however, the attorney must take responsibility for the full scope of representation of the corporate client, and must do (and bill for) whatever work is necessary to assure that the client is properly represented and the work product meets the minimum standards of the profession. Otherwise the attorney opens him or herself up to State Bar discipline and malpractice litigation.