A New York federal judge overseeing a wage-and-hour lawsuit brought against Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom expressed skepticism Thursday at the plaintiff’s assertion that document review is so mundane it should not qualify as practicing law.
The suit, a proposed class action filed in July against Skadden and Tower Legal Staffing, claims that contract attorney David Lola deserves overtime pay for his work on a document review undertaken in 2012 as part of a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. In making the argument, Lola, represented by plaintiffs lawyer D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, insists he had to follow “extremely detailed protocols” that did not allow or require him to “exercise any judgment.”
Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, practicing law is considered exempt from overtime laws. Kirschenbaum, who has sued two other law firms for similar alleged FLSA violations, argues that document review should fall outside the definition of practicing law and qualify employees for time-and-a-half pay on all hours worked each week above 40.
During Thursday’s hearing, held to discuss Skadden’s request to file a motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan questioned both sides on the two main aspects of the case: whether document review is practicing law, and whether Skadden and Tower qualify as joint employers under the FLSA.
By the end of the proceedings, Sullivan made his opinion on the first question clear, saying that while he would like a motion to dismiss to be fully briefed, document review “strikes me as the practice of law, even if it’s not the most glamorous.”
Sullivan, who noted several times that the case presents “an interesting issue,” pressed Kirschenbaum on how Lola’s work differs from that of many first- and second-year associates tasked with a heavy volume of document review. Kirschenbaum argued that regular associates, unlike contract attorneys, could be called away at any time to help draft a memo or work on more substantive assignments. “A first-year could make photocopies, but that doesn’t change that he was hired as a lawyer,” Kirschenbaum said.
Sullivan seemed wary of Kirschenbaum’s distinction and expressed concern about putting the court in a position where it would have to decide what percentage of a lawyer’s work qualifies as the practice of law. If that became the case, Sullivan said, “there might be full-fledged associates at Skadden who do 90 percent document review and who want overtime on their $160,000-a-year salary.”
Skadden’s counsel, Brian Gershengorn of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, stressed Sullivan’s point that “this is what first- and second-year attorneys do.” When presented with a hypothetical about a licensed attorney tasked with photocopying for 12 hours each day, Gershengorn agreed with Sullivan that in that situation, overtime could be warranted, but that the circumstances differ in this case.
To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.
Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at email@example.com