Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page1 of 19

143845
Lolav.Skadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT
____________________
AugustTerm,2014
(Argued:May29,2015

Decided:July23,2015)
DocketNo.143845cv
____________________

DAVIDLOLA,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,

PlaintiffAppellant,
v.
SKADDEN,ARPS,SLATE,MEAGHER&FLOMLLP,TOWERLEGAL
STAFFING,INC.,
DefendantsAppellees.
____________________
Before:POOLER,LOHIER,DRONEY,CircuitJudges.
DavidLola,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,appeals

30

fromtheSeptember16,2014opinionandorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt

31

fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Sullivan,J.)dismissinghisputative

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page2 of 19

collectiveactionseekingdamagesfromSkadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom

LLPandTowerLegalStaffing,Inc.forviolationsoftheovertimeprovisionofthe

FairLaborStandardsAct,29U.S.C.201etseq.(FLSA),arisingoutofLolas

workasacontractattorneyinNorthCarolina.Weagreewiththedistrictcourt

that:(1)state,notfederal,lawinformsFLSAsdefinitionofpracticeoflaw;and

(2)NorthCarolina,astheplacewhereLolaworkedandlived,hasthegreatest

interestinthislitigation,andthuswelooktoNorthCarolinalawtodetermineif

LolawaspracticinglawwithinthemeaningofFLSA.However,wedisagreewith

thedistrictcourtsconclusion,onamotiontodismiss,thatbyundertakingthe

10

documentreviewLolaallegedlywashiredtoconduct,Lolawasnecessarily

11

practicinglawwithinthemeaningofNorthCarolinalaw.
Vacatedandremanded.

12

____________________

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

D.MAIMONKIRSCHENBAUM,Joseph&
KirschenbaumLLP(DeniseA.Shulman,onthe
brief),NewYork,NY,forPlaintiffAppellantDavid
Lola,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarly
situated.

BRIANJ.GERSHENGORN,Ogletree,Deakins,
Nash,Smoak&Stewart,P.C.(StephanieL.
2

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page3 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6

Aranyos,onthebrief)NewYork,N.Y.for
DefendantsAppelleesSkadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher
&FlomLLPandTowerLegalStaffing,Inc.
POOLER,CircuitJudge:
DavidLola,onbehalfofhimselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,appeals

fromtheSeptember16,2014opinionandorderoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt

fortheSouthernDistrictofNewYork(Sullivan,J.)dismissinghisputative

collectiveactionseekingdamagesfromSkadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom

10

LLPandTowerLegalStaffing,Inc.forviolationsoftheovertimeprovisionofthe

11

FairLaborStandardsAct,29U.S.C.201etseq.(FLSA),arisingoutofLolas

12

workasacontractattorneyinNorthCarolina.Weagreewiththedistrictcourts

13

conclusionthat:(1)state,notfederal,lawinformsFLSAsdefinitionofpractice

14

oflaw;and(2)NorthCarolina,astheplacewhereLolaworkedandlived,has

15

thegreatestinterestinthislitigation,andthuswelooktoNorthCarolinalawto

16

determineifLolawaspracticinglawwithinthemeaningofFLSA.However,we

17

disagreewiththedistrictcourtsconclusion,onamotiontodismiss,thatby

18

undertakingthedocumentreviewLolaallegedlywashiredtoconduct,Lolawas

19

necessarilypracticinglawwithinthemeaningofNorthCarolinalaw.Wefind

20

thatacceptingtheallegationsaspleaded,Lolaadequatelyallegedinhis
3

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page4 of 19

complaintthathisdocumentreviewwasdevoidoflegaljudgmentsuchthathe

wasnotengagedinthepracticeoflaw,andremandforfurtherproceedings.

3
4

BACKGROUND
LolacommencedthisFLSAcollectiveactionagainstSkadden,Arps,Slate,

Meagher&FlomLLPandTowerLegalStaffingInc.Inhisfirstamended

complaint,LolaallegedthatSkadden,aDelawarelimitedliabilitypartnership,is

basedinNewYorkCity.HeallegesthatTowerisaNewYorkcorporationthat

providesattorneysandparalegalsonacontractbasistovariouslawfirmsand

corporatelawdepartments.LolaallegesthatSkaddenandTower(together,

10
11

Defendants)werejointemployerswithinthemeaningofFLSA.
Lola,aNorthCarolinaresident,allegesthatbeginninginApril2012,he

12

workedforDefendantsforfifteenmonthsinNorthCarolina.Heconducted

13

documentreviewforSkaddeninconnectionwithamultidistrictlitigation

14

pendingintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofOhio.

15

LolaisanattorneylicensedtopracticelawinCalifornia,butheisnotadmittedto

16

practicelawineitherNorthCarolinaortheNorthernDistrictofOhio.

17
18

LolaallegesthathisworkwascloselysupervisedbytheDefendants,and
hisentireresponsibility...consistedof(a)lookingatdocumentstoseewhat
4

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page5 of 19

searchterms,ifany,appearedinthedocuments,(b)markingthosedocuments

intothecategoriespredeterminedbyDefendants,and(c)attimesdrawingblack

boxestoredactportionsofcertaindocumentsbasedonspecificprotocolsthat

Defendantsprovided.Appxat2028.LolafurtherallegesthatDefendants

providedhimwiththedocumentshereviewed,thesearchtermshewastousein

connectionwiththosedocuments,andtheprocedureshewastofollowifthe

searchtermsappeared.Lolawaspaid$25anhourforhiswork,andworked

roughlyfortyfivetofiftyfivehoursaweek.Hewaspaidatthesamerateforany

hoursheworkedinexcessoffortyhoursperweek.Lolawastoldthathewasan

10

employeeofTower,buthewasalsotoldthatheneededtofollowanyprocedures

11

setbySkaddenattorneys,andheworkedunderthesupervisionofSkadden

12

attorneys.Otherattorneysemployedtoworkonthesameprojectperformed

13

similarworkandwerelikewisepaidhourlyratesthatremainedthesameforany

14

hoursworkedinexcessoffortyhoursperweek.

15

Defendantsmovedtodismissthecomplaint,arguingthatLolawasexempt

16

fromFLSAsovertimerulesbecausehewasalicensedattorneyengagedinthe

17

practiceoflaw.Thedistrictcourtgrantedthemotion,finding(1)state,not

18

federal,standardsappliedindeterminingwhetheranattorneywaspracticing
5

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page6 of 19

lawunderFLSA;(2)NorthCarolinahadthegreatestinterestintheoutcomeof

thelitigation,thusNorthCarolinaslawshouldapply;and(3)Lolawasengaged

inthepracticeoflawasdefinedbyNorthCarolinalaw,andwasthereforean

exemptemployeeunderFLSA.Lolav.Skadden,Arps,Slate,Meagher&Flom,LLP,

No.13cv5008(RJS),2014WL4626228(S.D.N.Y.Sept.16,2014).Thisappeal

followed.

7
8
9

DISCUSSION
Wereviewdenovoadistrictcourtsdismissalofacomplaintforfailureto
stateaclaim,acceptingallfactualallegationsinthecomplaintastrueand

10

drawingallreasonableinferencesinplaintiffsfavor.Freidusv.BarclaysBank

11

PLC,734F.3d132,137(2dCir.2013).

12

PursuanttoFLSA,employersmustgenerallypayemployeesworking

13

overtimeoneandonehalftimestheregularrateofpayforanyhoursworkedin

14

excessoffortyaweek.29U.S.C.207(a)(1).However,employeesemployedina

15

bonafide...professionalcapacityareexemptfromthatrequirement.Id.

16

213(a)(1).Thestatutedoesnotprovideadefinitionofprofessionalcapacity,

17

insteaddelegatingtheauthoritytodosototheSecretaryoftheDepartmentof

18

Labor(DOL),whodefinesprofessionalemployeestoincludethose
6

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page7 of 19

employeeswhoare:
(1)Compensatedonasalaryorfeebasisatarateofnot
lessthan$455perweek...;and

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

29C.F.R.541.300.Theserequirements,however,donotapplytoattorneys

16

engagedinthepracticeoflaw.29C.F.R.541.304(d)(Therequirementsof

17

541.300andsubpartG(salaryrequirements)ofthispartdonotapplytothe

18

employeesdescribedinthissection.).Instead,attorneysfallunder29C.F.R.

19

541.304,whichexemptsfromtheovertimerequirement:

(2)Whoseprimarydutyistheperformanceofwork:
(i)Requiringknowledgeofanadvancedtypeina
fieldofscienceorlearningcustomarilyacquiredbya
prolongedcourseofintellectualinstruction;or
(ii)Requiringinvention,imagination,originality
ortalentinarecognizedfieldofartisticorcreative
endeavor.

Anyemployeewhoistheholderofavalidlicenseor
certificatepermittingthepracticeoflawormedicineor
anyoftheirbranchesandisactuallyengagedinthe
practicethereof[.]

20
21
22
23
24
25

Id.541.304(a)(1).WhileitisundisputedthatLolaisanattorneylicensedto

26

practicelawinCalifornia,thepartiesdisputewhetherthedocumentreviewhe

27

allegedlyperformedconstitutesengaginginthepracticeoflaw.
7

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page8 of 19

I.

Practiceoflaw.

Lolaurgesustofashionanewfederalstandarddefiningthepracticeof

lawwithinthemeaningofSection541.304.Wedeclinetodosobecausewe

agreewiththedistrictcourtthatthedefinitionofpracticeoflawisprimarilya

matterofstateconcern.Lola,2014WL4626228,at*4(citationomitted).

InKamenv.KemperFinancialServices,Inc.,500U.S.90(1991),theSupreme

Courtexaminedwhether,inanactionbasedonafederalstatute,federalcommon

lawshouldincorporatestatelaw.There,theissuewaswhetherthecontoursof

thedemandfutilityrequirementoftheInvestmentCompanyActof1940mustbe

10

discernedbyreferencetostatelaworbyreferencetofederallaw.Id.at9798.The

11

KamenCourtexplainedthatacourtshouldendeavortofilltheintersticesof

12

federalremedialschemeswithuniformfederalrulesonlywhentheschemein

13

questionevidencesadistinctneedfornationwidelegalstandards,orwhen

14

expressprovisionsinanalogousstatutoryschemesembodycongressionalpolicy

15

choicesreadilyapplicabletothematterathand.Id.at98(citationomitted).

16

Otherwise,theCourtcontinued:

17
18
19

wehaveindicatedthatfederalcourtsshould
incorporatestatelawasthefederalruleofdecision,
unlessapplicationoftheparticularstatelawinquestion
8

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page9 of 19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

wouldfrustratespecificobjectivesofthefederal
programs.Thepresumptionthatstatelawshouldbe
incorporatedintofederalcommonlawisparticularly
stronginareasinwhichprivatepartieshaveentered
legalrelationshipswiththeexpectationthattheirrights
andobligationswouldbegovernedbystatelaw
standards.
Id.(internalcitation,quotationmarksandalterationsomitted).
Applyingtheseprinciples,theSupremeCourtexplainedthatwhereagap

11

inthefederalsecuritieslawsmustbebridgedbyarulethatbearsonthe

12

allocationofgoverningpowerswithinthecorporation,federalcourtsshould

13

incorporatestatelawintofederalcommonlawunlesstheparticularstatelawin

14

questionisinconsistentwiththepoliciesunderlyingthefederalstatute.Id.at

15

108(emphasisomitted).Thus,theKamencourtconcludedthatthescopeofthe

16

demandrequirementmustbedeterminedbythelawofthestateof

17

incorporation.Id.at108.

18

DeSylvav.Ballentine,351U.S.570(1956),isalsoinstructiveindetermining

19

whetherstateorfederallawshoulddefinethesweepofafederalright..InDe

20

Sylva,theSupremeCourtexaminedthequestionofwhetheranillegitimatechild

21

wasachildwithinthemeaningoftheCopyrightAct.Notingthat[t]hescope

22

ofafederalrightis,ofcourse,afederalquestion,butthatdoesnotmeanthatits
9

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page10 of 19

contentisnottobedeterminedbystate,ratherthanfederallaw,id.,thecourt

alsoobservedthat[t]hisisespeciallytruewhereastatutedealswithafamilial

relationship;thereisnofederallawofdomesticrelations,whichisprimarilya

matterofstateconcern.Id.TheCourtthenreliedonstatelawtodefinechild

withinthemeaningofthefederalCopyrightAct.Id.at581.

Justasthereisnofederallawofdomesticrelations,herethereisno

federallawgoverninglawyers.Regulatingthepracticeoflawistraditionallya

stateendeavor.Nofederalschemeexistsforissuinglawlicenses.Asthedistrict

courtaptlyobserved,[s]tatesregulatealmosteveryaspectoflegalpractice:they

10

settheeligibilitycriteriaandoverseetheadmissionprocessforwouldbe

11

lawyers,promulgatetherulesofprofessionalethics,anddisciplinelawyerswho

12

failtofollowthoserules,amongmanyotherresponsibilities.Lola,2014WL

13

4626228,at*4.TheexemptioninFLSAspecificallyreliesontheattorney

14

possessingavalidlicense...permittingthepracticeoflaw.29C.F.R.

15

541.304(a)(1).TheregulationshistoryindicatesthattheDOLwaswellawarethat

16

suchlicenseswereissuedbythestates.SeeWageandHourandPublicContracts

17

Divisions,U.S.DepartmentofLabor,ReportandRecommendationsofthe

18

PresidingOfficeratPublicHearingsonProposedRevisionsofRegulations,Part
10

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page11 of 19

541,at77(1949)(notingthattheexemptionforattorneyswasbasedinparton

theuniversalrequirementoflicensingbythevariousjurisdictions).Inrejecting

aproposaltoexemptlibrariansfromtheovertimerules,theDOLnotedthat

statesdonotgenerallylicensethepracticeoflibraryscience,sothatinthis

respect...theprofessionisnotcomparabletothatoflawormedicine.Id.A

similardistinctionwasdrawninadiscussionofextendingtheexemptionto

architectsandengineers:
Thepracticeoflawandmedicinehasalonghistoryof
statelicensingandcertification;thelicensingof
engineersandarchitectsisrelativelyrecent.Whileitis
impossibleforadoctororlawyerlegallytopracticehis
professionwithoutacertificateorlicense,many
architectsandengineersperformworkinthesefields
withoutpossessinglicenses,althoughfailuretoholda
licensemaylimittheirpermissibleactivitiestothoseof
lesserresponsibilities.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Id.Wethusfindnoerrorwiththedistrictcourtsconclusionthatweshouldlook

19

tostatelawindefiningthepracticeoflaw.

20

II.

Choiceoflaw.

21

Weturntothequestionofwhichstateslawtoapply.Wherejurisdiction

22

isbasedontheexistenceofafederalquestion...wehavenothesitatedtoapply

23

afederalcommonlawchoiceoflawanalysis.Barkanicv.Gen.Admin.ofCivil
11

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page12 of 19

AviationofthePeoplesRepublicofChina,923F.2d957,961(2dCir.1991).The

federalcommonlawchoiceoflawruleistoapplythelawofthejurisdiction

havingthegreatestinterestinthelitigation.InreKoreag,ControleetRevisionS.A.,

961F.2d341,350(2dCir.1992).Here,therearefourpossibleforumstates:North

Carolina(whereLolaworkedandlived);Ohio(wheretheunderlyinglitigationis

venued);California(whereLolaisbarred);andNewYork(whereSkaddenis

located).

[W]henconductingafederalcommonlawchoiceoflawanalysis,absent

guidancefromCongress,wemayconsulttheRestatement(Second)ofConflictof

10

Laws.EliLillyDoBrasil,Ltdav.Fed.ExpressCorp.,502F.3d78,81(2dCir.2007).

11

TheRestatementprovidesinrelevantpartthat:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Thevalidityofacontractfortherenditionof
servicesandtherightscreatedtherebyaredetermined,
intheabsenceofaneffectivechoiceoflawbythe
parties,bythelocallawofthestatewherethecontract
requiresthattheservices,oramajorportionofthe
services,berendered,unless,withrespecttothe
particularissue,someotherstatehasamoresignificant
relationshipundertheprinciplesstatedin6tothe
transactionandtheparties,inwhich[]eventthelocal
lawoftheotherstatewillbeapplied.
Restatement(Second)ofConflictofLaws196(1971).Here,theserviceswere

12

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page13 of 19

renderedinNorthCarolina.Moreover,asthestatewhereLolaresides,North

CarolinapossessesastronginterestinmakingsureLolaisfairlypaid.Wefindno

errorinthedistrictcourtsdecisiontoapplyNorthCarolinalaw.

4
5
6
7

III.

DefinitionofpracticeoflawunderNorthCarolinalaw.

NorthCarolinadefinesthepracticeoflawinitsGeneralStatutes,Section
842.1,whichprovidesthat:
ThephrasepracticelawasusedinthisChapter
isdefinedtobeperforminganylegalserviceforany
otherperson,firmorcorporation,withorwithout
compensation,specificallyincluding...thepreparation
andfilingofpetitionsforuseinanycourt,including
administrativetribunalsandotherjudicialor
quasijudicialbodies,orassistingbyadvice,counsel,or
otherwiseinanylegalwork;andtoadviseorgive
opinionuponthelegalrightsofanyperson,firmor
corporation....

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

N.C.Gen.Stat.842.1.NorthCarolinacourtstypicallyreadSection842.1in

20

conjunctionwithSection844,whichdefinestheunauthorizedpracticeoflawas

21

follows:

22
23
24
25
26
27

Exceptasotherwisepermittedbylaw,...itshall
beunlawfulforanypersonorassociationofpersons
exceptactivemembersoftheBar,fororwithoutafeeor
consideration,togivelegaladviceorcounsel,[or]
performfororfurnishtoanotherlegalservices....

13

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page14 of 19

Id.844;seeN.C.StateBarv.Lienguard,Inc.,No.11cvs7288,2014WL1365418,

at*67(N.C.Super.Ct.Apr.4,2014).

TheNorthCarolinaGeneralStatutesdonotclarifywhetherlegal

servicesincludestheperformanceofdocumentreview.Nevertheless,theNorth

CarolinaStateBarissuedaformalethicsopinionsheddinglightonwhatismeant

bylegalservices.1Thequestionconsideredintheethicsopinionwas:Maya

lawyerethicallyoutsourcelegalsupportservicesabroad,iftheindividual

providingtheservicesiseitheranonlawyeroralawyernotadmittedtopractice

intheUnitedStates(collectivelyforeignassistants)?Initsopinion,theBars

10

EthicsCommitteeopinedthat:
Alawyermayuseforeignassistantsforadministrative
supportservicessuchasdocumentassembly,
accounting,andclericalsupport.Alawyermayalsouse
foreignassistantsforlimitedlegalsupportservicessuch
asreviewingdocuments;conductingduediligence;
draftingcontracts,pleadings,andmemorandaoflaw;
andconductinglegalresearch.Foreignassistantsmay
notexerciseindependentlegaljudgmentinmaking
decisionsonbehalfofaclient....Thelimitationsonthe
typeoflegalservicesthatcanbeoutsourced,in

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Theethicsopiniontechnicallyreferredonlytolegalsupportservices.
NothingintheopinionorintherelevantNorthCarolinacaselawsuggeststhat
thereisanymeaningfuldifferencebetweenlegalservicesandlegalsupport
services.
14

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page15 of 19

conjunctionwiththeselectionandsupervisory
requirementsassociatedwiththeuseofforeign
assistants,insuresthattheclientiscompetently
represented.SeeRule5.5(d).Nevertheless,when
outsourcinglegalsupportservices,lawyersneedtobe
mindfuloftheprohibitionsonunauthorizedpracticeof
lawinChapter84oftheGeneralStatutesandonthe
prohibitiononaidingtheunauthorizedpracticeoflaw
inRule5.5(d).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

N.C.StateBarEthicsCommittee,2007FormalEthicsOp.12(Apr.25,2008).

12

13

reviewisconsideredlegalsupportservices,alongwithdraftingcontracts,

14

pleadings,andmemorandaoflaw[,]andconductinglegalresearch;(2)the

15

ethicsopiniondrawsaclearlinebetweenlegalsupportservices,likedocument

16

review,andadministrativesupportservices,likedocumentassembly,

17

accounting,andclericalsupport;and(3)byemphasizingthatonlylawyersmay

18

undertakelegalwork,theethicsopinionmakesclearthatdocumentreview,like

19

otherlegalsupportservices,constitutesthepracticeoflawandmaybelawfully

20

performedbyanonlawyeronlyifthatnonlawyerissupervisedbyalicensed

21

attorney.Lola,2014WL4626228,at*1112(alterationintheoriginal).Thus,the

22

districtcourtconcluded,anylevelofdocumentreviewisconsideredthepractice

23

oflawinNorthCarolina.Id.at12.Thedistrictcourtalsoconcludedthatbecause

Thedistrictcourtfoundthat(1)underNorthCarolinalaw,document

15

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page16 of 19

FLSAsregulatoryschemecarvesdoctorsandlawyersoutofthesalaryandduty

analysisemployedtodiscernifothertypesofemployeesfallwithinthe

professionalexemption,afactintensiveinquiryisatoddswithFLSAs

regulatoryscheme.Id.at*13.

Wedisagree.Thedistrictcourterredinconcludingthatengagingin

documentreviewperseconstitutespracticinglawinNorthCarolina.Theethics

opiniondoesnotdelveintopreciselywhattypeofdocumentreviewfallswithin

thepracticeoflaw,butdoesnotethatwhilereviewingdocumentsmaybe

withinthepracticeoflaw,[f]oreignassistantsmaynotexerciseindependent

10

legaljudgmentinmakingdecisionsonbehalfofaclient.N.C.StateBarEthics

11

Committee,2007FormalEthicsOp.12.Theethicsopinionstronglysuggeststhat

12

inherentinthedefinitionofpracticeoflawinNorthCarolinaistheexerciseof

13

atleastamodicumofindependentlegaljudgment.2

14

Wereitanoption,wemighthaveoptedtocertifythequestionofhowto
definepracticeoflawtotheNorthCarolinacourts.SeeAGIAssocs.LLCv.City
ofHickory,N.C.,773F.3d576,579n.4(4thCir.2014)(Alackofcontrolling
precedentonthestateruleofdecisioncanmeritcertificationoftheissuetothe
stateshighestcourt.TheStateofNorthCarolina,however,hasnocertification
procedureinplaceforfederalcourtstocertifyquestionstoitscourts.).
16

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page17 of 19

Althoughthepartiesdonotcite,andourresearchdidnotreveal,acase

directlyonpoint,twodecisionsoftheNorthCarolinacourtsthatrelied,inpart,

ontheexerciseoflegaljudgmenttosupportafindingofunauthorizedpracticeof

lawalsosupportsuchaconclusion.Lienguard,2014WL1365418,at*911(lien

filingserviceengagedinunauthorizedpracticeoflawinpreparingclaimsof

lien);LegalZoom.com,Inc.v.N.C.StateBar,No.11cvs15111,2014WL1213242,at

*12(N.C.Super.Ct.Mar.24,2014)(notingthatthescrivenersexceptiontothe

unauthorizedpracticeoflawallowsunlicensedindividuals[to]record

informationthatanotherprovideswithoutengagingin[theunlicensedpractice

10

oflaw]aslongastheydonotalsoprovideadviceorexpresslegaljudgments).

11

Moreover,manyotherstatesalsoconsidertheexerciseofsomelegal

12

judgmentanessentialelementofthepracticeoflaw.See,e.g.,InreDisciplineof

13

Lerner,197P.3d1067,106970(Nev.2008)(exerciseoflegaljudgmentona

14

clientsbehalfkeytoanalysisofwhetherapersonengagedintheunauthorized

15

practiceoflaw);Peoplev.Shell,148P.3d162,174(Colo.2006)([O]neofthe

16

touchstonesofColoradosbanontheunauthorizedpracticeoflawisan

17

unlicensedpersonofferingadviceorjudgmentaboutlegalmatterstoanother

18

personforuseinaspecificlegalsetting);Or.StateBarv.Smith,942P.2d793,800
17

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page18 of 19

(Or.Ct.App.1997)(Thepracticeoflawmeanstheexerciseofprofessional

judgmentinapplyinglegalprinciplestoaddressanotherpersonsindividualized

needsthroughanalysis,advice,orotherassistance.);InreDiscipio,645N.E.2d

906,910(Ill.1994)(Thefocusoftheinquiryintowhetherpersonengagedin

unauthorizedpracticeoflawis,infact,whethertheactivityinquestionrequired

legalknowledgeandskillinordertoapplylegalprinciplesandprecedent.);In

reRowe,80N.Y.2d336,34142(1992)(authoringanarticleonthelegalrightsof

psychiatricpatientswhorefusetreatmentdidnotconstitutethepracticeoflaw

because[t]hepracticeoflawinvolvestherenderingoflegaladviceandopinions

10
11

directedtoparticularclients).
ThegravamenofLolascomplaintisthatheperformeddocumentreview

12

undersuchtightconstraintsthatheexercisednolegaljudgmentwhatsoeverhe

13

allegesthatheusedcriteriadevelopedbyotherstosimplysortdocumentsinto

14

differentcategories.Acceptingthoseallegationsastrue,aswemustonamotion

15

todismiss,wefindthatLolaadequatelyallegedinhiscomplaintthathefailedto

16

exerciseanylegaljudgmentinperforminghisdutiesforDefendants.Afair

17

readingofthecomplaintinthelightmostfavorabletoLolaisthatheprovided

18

servicesthatamachinecouldhaveprovided.Thepartiesthemselvesagreedat
18

Case 14-3845, Document 89-1, 07/23/2015, 1560411, Page19 of 19

oralargumentthatanindividualwho,inthecourseofreviewingdiscovery

documents,undertakestasksthatcouldotherwisebeperformedentirelybya

machinecannotbesaidtoengageinthepracticeoflaw.Wethereforevacatethe

judgmentofthedistrictcourtandremandforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwith

thisopinion.
CONCLUSION

6
7
8

Forthereasonsgivenabove,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtisvacated,
andthismatterremanded.

9
10
11
12
13

19

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. KATZMANN

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CHIEF JUDGE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: July 23, 2015


Docket #: 14-3845cv
Short 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 of
costs 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, a
cover, 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 New
York, 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 89-3, 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. KATZMANN

CATHERINE O'HAGAN WOLFE

CHIEF JUDGE

CLERK OF COURT

Date: July 23, 2015


Docket #: 14-3845cv
Short 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 to
prepare 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