Lola v. Skadden Arps
-
Upload
staci-zaretsky -
Category
Documents
-
view
75 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Lola v. Skadden Arps
-
143845Lolav.Skadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS1FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT2
____________________34
AugustTerm,201456
(Argued:May29,2015 Decided:July23,2015)78
DocketNo.143845cv910
____________________1112
DAVIDLOLA,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,131415
PlaintiffAppellant,1617
v.1819
SKADDEN,ARPS,SLATE,MEAGHER&FLOMLLP,TOWERLEGAL20STAFFING,INC.,21
22DefendantsAppellees.23
24____________________25
26Before:POOLER,LOHIER,DRONEY,CircuitJudges.27
28DavidLola,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,appeals29
fromtheSeptember16,2014opinionandorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt30
fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Sullivan,J.)dismissinghisputative31
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page1 of 19
-
collectiveactionseekingdamagesfromSkadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom1
LLPandTowerLegalStaffing,Inc.forviolationsoftheovertimeprovisionofthe2
FairLaborStandardsAct,29U.S.C.201etseq.(FLSA),arisingoutofLolas3
workasacontractattorneyinNorthCarolina.Weagreewiththedistrictcourt4
that:(1)state,notfederal,lawinformsFLSAsdefinitionofpracticeoflaw;and5
(2)NorthCarolina,astheplacewhereLolaworkedandlived,hasthegreatest6
interestinthislitigation,andthuswelooktoNorthCarolinalawtodetermineif7
LolawaspracticinglawwithinthemeaningofFLSA.However,wedisagreewith8
thedistrictcourtsconclusion,onamotiontodismiss,thatbyundertakingthe9
documentreviewLolaallegedlywashiredtoconduct,Lolawasnecessarily10
practicinglawwithinthemeaningofNorthCarolinalaw.11
Vacatedandremanded.12
____________________13
14D.MAIMONKIRSCHENBAUM,Joseph&15KirschenbaumLLP(DeniseA.Shulman,onthe16brief),NewYork,NY,forPlaintiffAppellantDavid17Lola,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarly18situated.19
20BRIANJ.GERSHENGORN,Ogletree,Deakins,21Nash,Smoak&Stewart,P.C.(StephanieL.22
2
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page2 of 19
-
Aranyos,onthebrief)NewYork,N.Y.for1DefendantsAppelleesSkadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher2&FlomLLPandTowerLegalStaffing,Inc.3
4POOLER,CircuitJudge:5
DavidLola,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,appeals6
fromtheSeptember16,2014opinionandorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt7
fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Sullivan,J.)dismissinghisputative8
collectiveactionseekingdamagesfromSkadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom9
LLPandTowerLegalStaffing,Inc.forviolationsoftheovertimeprovisionofthe10
FairLaborStandardsAct,29U.S.C.201etseq.(FLSA),arisingoutofLolas11
workasacontractattorneyinNorthCarolina.Weagreewiththedistrictcourts12
conclusionthat:(1)state,notfederal,lawinformsFLSAsdefinitionofpractice13
oflaw;and(2)NorthCarolina,astheplacewhereLolaworkedandlived,has14
thegreatestinterestinthislitigation,andthuswelooktoNorthCarolinalawto15
determineifLolawaspracticinglawwithinthemeaningofFLSA.However,we16
disagreewiththedistrictcourtsconclusion,onamotiontodismiss,thatby17
undertakingthedocumentreviewLolaallegedlywashiredtoconduct,Lolawas18
necessarilypracticinglawwithinthemeaningofNorthCarolinalaw.Wefind19
thatacceptingtheallegationsaspleaded,Lolaadequatelyallegedinhis20
3
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page3 of 19
-
complaintthathisdocumentreviewwasdevoidoflegaljudgmentsuchthathe1
wasnotengagedinthepracticeoflaw,andremandforfurtherproceedings.2
BACKGROUND3
LolacommencedthisFLSAcollectiveactionagainstSkadden,Arps,Slate,4
Meagher&FlomLLPandTowerLegalStaffingInc.Inhisfirstamended5
complaint,LolaallegedthatSkadden,aDelawarelimitedliabilitypartnership,is6
basedinNewYorkCity.HeallegesthatTowerisaNewYorkcorporationthat7
providesattorneysandparalegalsonacontractbasistovariouslawfirmsand8
corporatelawdepartments.LolaallegesthatSkaddenandTower(together,9
Defendants)werejointemployerswithinthemeaningofFLSA.10
Lola,aNorthCarolinaresident,allegesthatbeginninginApril2012,he11
workedforDefendantsforfifteenmonthsinNorthCarolina.Heconducted12
documentreviewforSkaddeninconnectionwithamultidistrictlitigation13
pendingintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofOhio.14
LolaisanattorneylicensedtopracticelawinCalifornia,butheisnotadmittedto15
practicelawineitherNorthCarolinaortheNorthernDistrictofOhio.16
LolaallegesthathisworkwascloselysupervisedbytheDefendants,and17
hisentireresponsibility...consistedof(a)lookingatdocumentstoseewhat18
4
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page4 of 19
-
searchterms,ifany,appearedinthedocuments,(b)markingthosedocuments1
intothecategoriespredeterminedbyDefendants,and(c)attimesdrawingblack2
boxestoredactportionsofcertaindocumentsbasedonspecificprotocolsthat3
Defendantsprovided.Appxat2028.LolafurtherallegesthatDefendants4
providedhimwiththedocumentshereviewed,thesearchtermshewastousein5
connectionwiththosedocuments,andtheprocedureshewastofollowifthe6
searchtermsappeared.Lolawaspaid$25anhourforhiswork,andworked7
roughlyfortyfivetofiftyfivehoursaweek.Hewaspaidatthesamerateforany8
hoursheworkedinexcessoffortyhoursperweek.Lolawastoldthathewasan9
employeeofTower,buthewasalsotoldthatheneededtofollowanyprocedures10
setbySkaddenattorneys,andheworkedunderthesupervisionofSkadden11
attorneys.Otherattorneysemployedtoworkonthesameprojectperformed12
similarworkandwerelikewisepaidhourlyratesthatremainedthesameforany13
hoursworkedinexcessoffortyhoursperweek.14
Defendantsmovedtodismissthecomplaint,arguingthatLolawasexempt15
fromFLSAsovertimerulesbecausehewasalicensedattorneyengagedinthe16
practiceoflaw.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotion,finding(1)state,not17
federal,standardsappliedindeterminingwhetheranattorneywaspracticing18
5
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page5 of 19
-
lawunderFLSA;(2)NorthCarolinahadthegreatestinterestintheoutcomeof1
thelitigation,thusNorthCarolinaslawshouldapply;and(3)Lolawasengaged2
inthepracticeoflawasdefinedbyNorthCarolinalaw,andwasthereforean3
exemptemployeeunderFLSA.Lolav.Skadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom,LLP,4
No.13cv5008(RJS),2014WL4626228(S.D.N.Y.Sept.16,2014).Thisappeal5
followed.6
DISCUSSION7
Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourtsdismissalofacomplaintforfailureto8
stateaclaim,acceptingallfactualallegationsinthecomplaintastrueand9
drawingallreasonableinferencesinplaintiffsfavor.Freidusv.BarclaysBank10
PLC,734F.3d132,137(2dCir.2013).11
PursuanttoFLSA,employersmustgenerallypayemployeesworking12
overtimeoneandonehalftimestheregularrateofpayforanyhoursworkedin13
excessoffortyaweek.29U.S.C.207(a)(1).However,employeesemployedina14
bonafide...professionalcapacityareexemptfromthatrequirement.Id.15
213(a)(1).Thestatutedoesnotprovideadefinitionofprofessionalcapacity,16
insteaddelegatingtheauthoritytodosototheSecretaryoftheDepartmentof17
Labor(DOL),whodefinesprofessionalemployeestoincludethose18
6
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page6 of 19
-
employeeswhoare:1
(1)Compensatedonasalaryorfeebasisatarateofnot2lessthan$455perweek...;and3
4(2)Whoseprimarydutyistheperformanceofwork:5
6(i)Requiringknowledgeofanadvancedtypeina7
fieldofscienceorlearningcustomarilyacquiredbya8prolongedcourseofintellectualinstruction;or9
10(ii)Requiringinvention,imagination,originality11
ortalentinarecognizedfieldofartisticorcreative12endeavor.13
1429C.F.R.541.300.Theserequirements,however,donotapplytoattorneys15
engagedinthepracticeoflaw.29C.F.R.541.304(d)(Therequirementsof16
541.300andsubpartG(salaryrequirements)ofthispartdonotapplytothe17
employeesdescribedinthissection.).Instead,attorneysfallunder29C.F.R.18
541.304,whichexemptsfromtheovertimerequirement:19
Anyemployeewhoistheholderofavalidlicenseor20certificatepermittingthepracticeoflawormedicineor21anyoftheirbranchesandisactuallyengagedinthe22practicethereof[.]23
24Id.541.304(a)(1).WhileitisundisputedthatLolaisanattorneylicensedto25
practicelawinCalifornia,thepartiesdisputewhetherthedocumentreviewhe26
allegedlyperformedconstitutesengaginginthepracticeoflaw.27
7
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page7 of 19
-
I. Practiceoflaw.1
Lolaurgesustofashionanewfederalstandarddefiningthepracticeof2
lawwithinthemeaningofSection541.304.Wedeclinetodosobecausewe3
agreewiththedistrictcourtthatthedefinitionofpracticeoflawisprimarilya4
matterofstateconcern.Lola,2014WL4626228,at*4(citationomitted).5
InKamenv.KemperFinancialServices,Inc.,500U.S.90(1991),theSupreme6
Courtexaminedwhether,inanactionbasedonafederalstatute,federalcommon7
lawshouldincorporatestatelaw.There,theissuewaswhetherthecontoursof8
thedemandfutilityrequirementoftheInvestmentCompanyActof1940mustbe9
discernedbyreferencetostatelaworbyreferencetofederallaw.Id.at9798.The10
KamenCourtexplainedthatacourtshouldendeavortofilltheintersticesof11
federalremedialschemeswithuniformfederalrulesonlywhentheschemein12
questionevidencesadistinctneedfornationwidelegalstandards,orwhen13
expressprovisionsinanalogousstatutoryschemesembodycongressionalpolicy14
choicesreadilyapplicabletothematterathand.Id.at98(citationomitted).15
Otherwise,theCourtcontinued:16
wehaveindicatedthatfederalcourtsshould17incorporatestatelawasthefederalruleofdecision,18unlessapplicationoftheparticularstatelawinquestion19
8
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page8 of 19
-
wouldfrustratespecificobjectivesofthefederal1programs.Thepresumptionthatstatelawshouldbe2incorporatedintofederalcommonlawisparticularly3stronginareasinwhichprivatepartieshaveentered4legalrelationshipswiththeexpectationthattheirrights5andobligationswouldbegovernedbystatelaw6standards.7
8Id.(internalcitation,quotationmarksandalterationsomitted).9
Applyingtheseprinciples,theSupremeCourtexplainedthatwhereagap10
inthefederalsecuritieslawsmustbebridgedbyarulethatbearsonthe11
allocationofgoverningpowerswithinthecorporation,federalcourtsshould12
incorporatestatelawintofederalcommonlawunlesstheparticularstatelawin13
questionisinconsistentwiththepoliciesunderlyingthefederalstatute.Id.at14
108(emphasisomitted).Thus,theKamencourtconcludedthatthescopeofthe15
demandrequirementmustbedeterminedbythelawofthestateof16
incorporation.Id.at108.17
DeSylvav.Ballentine,351U.S.570(1956),isalsoinstructiveindetermining18
whetherstateorfederallawshoulddefinethesweepofafederalright..InDe19
Sylva,theSupremeCourtexaminedthequestionofwhetheranillegitimatechild20
wasachildwithinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct.Notingthat[t]hescope21
ofafederalrightis,ofcourse,afederalquestion,butthatdoesnotmeanthatits22
9
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page9 of 19
-
contentisnottobedeterminedbystate,ratherthanfederallaw,id.,thecourt1
alsoobservedthat[t]hisisespeciallytruewhereastatutedealswithafamilial2
relationship;thereisnofederallawofdomesticrelations,whichisprimarilya3
matterofstateconcern.Id.TheCourtthenreliedonstatelawtodefinechild4
withinthemeaningofthefederalCopyrightAct.Id.at581.5
Justasthereisnofederallawofdomesticrelations,herethereisno6
federallawgoverninglawyers.Regulatingthepracticeoflawistraditionallya7
stateendeavor.Nofederalschemeexistsforissuinglawlicenses.Asthedistrict8
courtaptlyobserved,[s]tatesregulatealmosteveryaspectoflegalpractice:they9
settheeligibilitycriteriaandoverseetheadmissionprocessforwouldbe10
lawyers,promulgatetherulesofprofessionalethics,anddisciplinelawyerswho11
failtofollowthoserules,amongmanyotherresponsibilities.Lola,2014WL12
4626228,at*4.TheexemptioninFLSAspecificallyreliesontheattorney13
possessingavalidlicense...permittingthepracticeoflaw.29C.F.R.14
541.304(a)(1).TheregulationshistoryindicatesthattheDOLwaswellawarethat15
suchlicenseswereissuedbythestates.SeeWageandHourandPublicContracts16
Divisions,U.S.DepartmentofLabor,ReportandRecommendationsofthe17
PresidingOfficeratPublicHearingsonProposedRevisionsofRegulations,Part18
10
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page10 of 19
-
541,at77(1949)(notingthattheexemptionforattorneyswasbasedinparton1
theuniversalrequirementoflicensingbythevariousjurisdictions).Inrejecting2
aproposaltoexemptlibrariansfromtheovertimerules,theDOLnotedthat3
statesdonotgenerallylicensethepracticeoflibraryscience,sothatinthis4
respect...theprofessionisnotcomparabletothatoflawormedicine.Id.A5
similardistinctionwasdrawninadiscussionofextendingtheexemptionto6
architectsandengineers:7
Thepracticeoflawandmedicinehasalonghistoryof8statelicensingandcertification;thelicensingof9engineersandarchitectsisrelativelyrecent.Whileitis10impossibleforadoctororlawyerlegallytopracticehis11professionwithoutacertificateorlicense,many12architectsandengineersperformworkinthesefields13withoutpossessinglicenses,althoughfailuretoholda14licensemaylimittheirpermissibleactivitiestothoseof15lesserresponsibilities.16
17Id.Wethusfindnoerrorwiththedistrictcourtsconclusionthatweshouldlook18
tostatelawindefiningthepracticeoflaw.19
II. Choiceoflaw.20
Weturntothequestionofwhichstateslawtoapply.Wherejurisdiction21
isbasedontheexistenceofafederalquestion...wehavenothesitatedtoapply22
afederalcommonlawchoiceoflawanalysis.Barkanicv.Gen.Admin.ofCivil23
11
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page11 of 19
-
AviationofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,923F.2d957,961(2dCir.1991).The1
federalcommonlawchoiceoflawruleistoapplythelawofthejurisdiction2
havingthegreatestinterestinthelitigation.InreKoreag,ControleetRevisionS.A.,3
961F.2d341,350(2dCir.1992).Here,therearefourpossibleforumstates:North4
Carolina(whereLolaworkedandlived);Ohio(wheretheunderlyinglitigationis5
venued);California(whereLolaisbarred);andNewYork(whereSkaddenis6
located).7
[W]henconductingafederalcommonlawchoiceoflawanalysis,absent8
guidancefromCongress,wemayconsulttheRestatement(Second)ofConflictof9
Laws.EliLillyDoBrasil,Ltdav.Fed.ExpressCorp.,502F.3d78,81(2dCir.2007).10
TheRestatementprovidesinrelevantpartthat:11
Thevalidityofacontractfortherenditionof12servicesandtherightscreatedtherebyaredetermined,13intheabsenceofaneffectivechoiceoflawbythe14parties,bythelocallawofthestatewherethecontract15requiresthattheservices,oramajorportionofthe16services,berendered,unless,withrespecttothe17particularissue,someotherstatehasamoresignificant18relationshipundertheprinciplesstatedin6tothe19transactionandtheparties,inwhich[]eventthelocal20lawoftheotherstatewillbeapplied.21
22Restatement(Second)ofConflictofLaws196(1971).Here,theserviceswere23
12
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page12 of 19
-
renderedinNorthCarolina.Moreover,asthestatewhereLolaresides,North1
CarolinapossessesastronginterestinmakingsureLolaisfairlypaid.Wefindno2
errorinthedistrictcourtsdecisiontoapplyNorthCarolinalaw.3
III. DefinitionofpracticeoflawunderNorthCarolinalaw.45
NorthCarolinadefinesthepracticeoflawinitsGeneralStatutes,Section6
842.1,whichprovidesthat:7
ThephrasepracticelawasusedinthisChapter8isdefinedtobeperforminganylegalserviceforany9otherperson,firmorcorporation,withorwithout10compensation,specificallyincluding...thepreparation11andfilingofpetitionsforuseinanycourt,including12administrativetribunalsandotherjudicialor13quasijudicialbodies,orassistingbyadvice,counsel,or14otherwiseinanylegalwork;andtoadviseorgive15opinionuponthelegalrightsofanyperson,firmor16corporation....17
18N.C.Gen.Stat.842.1.NorthCarolinacourtstypicallyreadSection842.1in19
conjunctionwithSection844,whichdefinestheunauthorizedpracticeoflawas20
follows:21
Exceptasotherwisepermittedbylaw,...itshall22beunlawfulforanypersonorassociationofpersons23exceptactivemembersoftheBar,fororwithoutafeeor24consideration,togivelegaladviceorcounsel,[or]25performfororfurnishtoanotherlegalservices....26
27
13
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page13 of 19
-
Id.844;seeN.C.StateBarv.Lienguard,Inc.,No.11cvs7288,2014WL1365418,1
at*67(N.C.Super.Ct.Apr.4,2014).2
TheNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutesdonotclarifywhetherlegal3
servicesincludestheperformanceofdocumentreview.Nevertheless,theNorth4
CarolinaStateBarissuedaformalethicsopinionsheddinglightonwhatismeant5
bylegalservices.1Thequestionconsideredintheethicsopinionwas:Maya6
lawyerethicallyoutsourcelegalsupportservicesabroad,iftheindividual7
providingtheservicesiseitheranonlawyeroralawyernotadmittedtopractice8
intheUnitedStates(collectivelyforeignassistants)?Initsopinion,theBars9
EthicsCommitteeopinedthat:10
Alawyermayuseforeignassistantsforadministrative11supportservicessuchasdocumentassembly,12accounting,andclericalsupport.Alawyermayalsouse13foreignassistantsforlimitedlegalsupportservicessuch14asreviewingdocuments;conductingduediligence;15draftingcontracts,pleadings,andmemorandaoflaw;16andconductinglegalresearch.Foreignassistantsmay17notexerciseindependentlegaljudgmentinmaking18decisionsonbehalfofaclient....Thelimitationsonthe19typeoflegalservicesthatcanbeoutsourced,in20
1 Theethicsopiniontechnicallyreferredonlytolegalsupportservices.NothingintheopinionorintherelevantNorthCarolinacaselawsuggeststhatthereisanymeaningfuldifferencebetweenlegalservicesandlegalsupportservices.
14
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page14 of 19
-
conjunctionwiththeselectionandsupervisory1requirementsassociatedwiththeuseofforeign2assistants,insuresthattheclientiscompetently3represented.SeeRule5.5(d).Nevertheless,when4outsourcinglegalsupportservices,lawyersneedtobe5mindfuloftheprohibitionsonunauthorizedpracticeof6lawinChapter84oftheGeneralStatutesandonthe7prohibitiononaidingtheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw8inRule5.5(d).9
10N.C.StateBarEthicsCommittee,2007FormalEthicsOp.12(Apr.25,2008).11
Thedistrictcourtfoundthat(1)underNorthCarolinalaw,document12
reviewisconsideredlegalsupportservices,alongwithdraftingcontracts,13
pleadings,andmemorandaoflaw[,]andconductinglegalresearch;(2)the14
ethicsopiniondrawsaclearlinebetweenlegalsupportservices,likedocument15
review,andadministrativesupportservices,likedocumentassembly,16
accounting,andclericalsupport;and(3)byemphasizingthatonlylawyersmay17
undertakelegalwork,theethicsopinionmakesclearthatdocumentreview,like18
otherlegalsupportservices,constitutesthepracticeoflawandmaybelawfully19
performedbyanonlawyeronlyifthatnonlawyerissupervisedbyalicensed20
attorney.Lola,2014WL4626228,at*1112(alterationintheoriginal).Thus,the21
districtcourtconcluded,anylevelofdocumentreviewisconsideredthepractice22
oflawinNorthCarolina.Id.at12.Thedistrictcourtalsoconcludedthatbecause23
15
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page15 of 19
-
FLSAsregulatoryschemecarvesdoctorsandlawyersoutofthesalaryandduty1
analysisemployedtodiscernifothertypesofemployeesfallwithinthe2
professionalexemption,afactintensiveinquiryisatoddswithFLSAs3
regulatoryscheme.Id.at*13.4
Wedisagree.Thedistrictcourterredinconcludingthatengagingin5
documentreviewperseconstitutespracticinglawinNorthCarolina.Theethics6
opiniondoesnotdelveintopreciselywhattypeofdocumentreviewfallswithin7
thepracticeoflaw,butdoesnotethatwhilereviewingdocumentsmaybe8
withinthepracticeoflaw,[f]oreignassistantsmaynotexerciseindependent9
legaljudgmentinmakingdecisionsonbehalfofaclient.N.C.StateBarEthics10
Committee,2007FormalEthicsOp.12.Theethicsopinionstronglysuggeststhat11
inherentinthedefinitionofpracticeoflawinNorthCarolinaistheexerciseof12
atleastamodicumofindependentlegaljudgment.213
14
2 Wereitanoption,wemighthaveoptedtocertifythequestionofhowtodefinepracticeoflawtotheNorthCarolinacourts.SeeAGIAssocs.LLCv.CityofHickory,N.C.,773F.3d576,579n.4(4thCir.2014)(Alackofcontrollingprecedentonthestateruleofdecisioncanmeritcertificationoftheissuetothestateshighestcourt.TheStateofNorthCarolina,however,hasnocertificationprocedureinplaceforfederalcourtstocertifyquestionstoitscourts.).
16
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page16 of 19
-
Althoughthepartiesdonotcite,andourresearchdidnotreveal,acase1
directlyonpoint,twodecisionsoftheNorthCarolinacourtsthatrelied,inpart,2
ontheexerciseoflegaljudgmenttosupportafindingofunauthorizedpracticeof3
lawalsosupportsuchaconclusion.Lienguard,2014WL1365418,at*911(lien4
filingserviceengagedinunauthorizedpracticeoflawinpreparingclaimsof5
lien);LegalZoom.com,Inc.v.N.C.StateBar,No.11cvs15111,2014WL1213242,at6
*12(N.C.Super.Ct.Mar.24,2014)(notingthatthescrivenersexceptiontothe7
unauthorizedpracticeoflawallowsunlicensedindividuals[to]record8
informationthatanotherprovideswithoutengagingin[theunlicensedpractice9
oflaw]aslongastheydonotalsoprovideadviceorexpresslegaljudgments).10
Moreover,manyotherstatesalsoconsidertheexerciseofsomelegal11
judgmentanessentialelementofthepracticeoflaw.See,e.g.,InreDisciplineof12
Lerner,197P.3d1067,106970(Nev.2008)(exerciseoflegaljudgmentona13
clientsbehalfkeytoanalysisofwhetherapersonengagedintheunauthorized14
practiceoflaw);Peoplev.Shell,148P.3d162,174(Colo.2006)([O]neofthe15
touchstonesofColoradosbanontheunauthorizedpracticeoflawisan16
unlicensedpersonofferingadviceorjudgmentaboutlegalmatterstoanother17
personforuseinaspecificlegalsetting);Or.StateBarv.Smith,942P.2d793,80018
17
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page17 of 19
-
(Or.Ct.App.1997)(Thepracticeoflawmeanstheexerciseofprofessional1
judgmentinapplyinglegalprinciplestoaddressanotherpersonsindividualized2
needsthroughanalysis,advice,orotherassistance.);InreDiscipio,645N.E.2d3
906,910(Ill.1994)(Thefocusoftheinquiryintowhetherpersonengagedin4
unauthorizedpracticeoflawis,infact,whethertheactivityinquestionrequired5
legalknowledgeandskillinordertoapplylegalprinciplesandprecedent.);In6
reRowe,80N.Y.2d336,34142(1992)(authoringanarticleonthelegalrightsof7
psychiatricpatientswhorefusetreatmentdidnotconstitutethepracticeoflaw8
because[t]hepracticeoflawinvolvestherenderingoflegaladviceandopinions9
directedtoparticularclients).10
ThegravamenofLolascomplaintisthatheperformeddocumentreview11
undersuchtightconstraintsthatheexercisednolegaljudgmentwhatsoeverhe12
allegesthatheusedcriteriadevelopedbyotherstosimplysortdocumentsinto13
differentcategories.Acceptingthoseallegationsastrue,aswemustonamotion14
todismiss,wefindthatLolaadequatelyallegedinhiscomplaintthathefailedto15
exerciseanylegaljudgmentinperforminghisdutiesforDefendants.Afair16
readingofthecomplaintinthelightmostfavorabletoLolaisthatheprovided17
servicesthatamachinecouldhaveprovided.Thepartiesthemselvesagreedat18
18
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page18 of 19
-
oralargumentthatanindividualwho,inthecourseofreviewingdiscovery1
documents,undertakestasksthatcouldotherwisebeperformedentirelybya2
machinecannotbesaidtoengageinthepracticeoflaw.Wethereforevacatethe3
judgmentofthedistrictcourtandremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith4
thisopinion.5
CONCLUSION6
Forthereasonsgivenabove,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisvacated,7
andthismatterremanded.8
9
10
11
12
13
19
Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page19 of 19
-
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANNCHIEF JUDGE
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFECLERK OF COURT
Date: July 23, 2015Docket #: 14-3845cvShort Title: Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
DC Docket #: 13-cv-5008 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY)DC Judge: Sullivan
BILL OF COSTS INSTRUCTIONS
The requirements for filing a bill of costs are set forth in FRAP 39. A form for filing a bill ofcosts is on the Court's website.
The bill of costs must:* be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment;* be verified;* be served on all adversaries; * not include charges for postage, delivery, service, overtime and the filers edits;* identify the number of copies which comprise the printer's unit;* include the printer's bills, which must state the minimum charge per printer's unit for a page, acover, foot lines by the line, and an index and table of cases by the page;* state only the number of necessary copies inserted in enclosed form;* state actual costs at rates not higher than those generally charged for printing services in NewYork, New York; excessive charges are subject to reduction;* be filed via CM/ECF or if counsel is exempted with the original and two copies.
Case 14-3845, Document 89-2, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page1 of 1
-
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse
40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007
ROBERT A. KATZMANNCHIEF JUDGE
CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFECLERK OF COURT
Date: July 23, 2015Docket #: 14-3845cvShort Title: Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
DC Docket #: 13-cv-5008 DC Court: SDNY (NEW YORK CITY)DC Judge: Sullivan
VERIFIED ITEMIZED BILL OF COSTS
Counsel for_________________________________________________________________________
respectfully submits, pursuant to FRAP 39 (c) the within bill of costs and requests the Clerk toprepare an itemized statement of costs taxed against the________________________________________________________________
and in favor of_________________________________________________________________________
for insertion in the mandate.
Docketing Fee _____________________
Costs of printing appendix (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________
Costs of printing brief (necessary copies ______________ ____) _____________________
Costs of printing reply brief (necessary copies ______________ ) _____________________
(VERIFICATION HERE)
________________________ Signature
Case 14-3845, Document 89-3, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page1 of 1
14-384589 Opinion FILED - 07/23/2015, p.189 Bill_of_Cost_Itemized_Notice_1 - 07/23/2015, p.2089 Bill_of_Cost_Itemized_Notice_2 - 07/23/2015, p.21