Biglaw, Document Review

Federal Appeals Court Says Doc Review Is NOT Real Legal Work

Today's decision may have implications for the legal landscape for document reviewers.

By  
on

The gravamen of [David] Lola’s complaint is that he performed document review under such tight constraints that he exercised no legal judgment whatsoever—he alleges that he used criteria developed by others to simply sort documents into different categories. Accepting those allegations as true, as we must on a motion to dismiss, we find that Lola adequately alleged in his complaint that he failed to exercise any legal judgment in performing his duties for [Skadden Arps]. A fair reading of the complaint in the light most favorable to Lola is that he provided services that a machine could have provided. The parties themselves agreed at oral argument that an individual who, in the course of reviewing discovery documents, undertakes tasks that could otherwise be performed entirely by a machine cannot be said to engage in the practice of law. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

— Judge Rosemary S. Pooler of the Second Circuit, writing on behalf of herself and Judges Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Christopher F. Droney, to vacate the decision of the Southern District of New York in Lola v. Skadden Arps.

(In the underlying case, document reviewer David Lola sued Skadden in search of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, with claims that his work did not rise to the level of the practice of law. S.D.N.Y. Judge Richard Sullivan granted Skadden’s motion to dismiss Lola’s suit, but Lola appealed to the Second Circuit and prevailed. Check out the opinion below.)

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , ,