Author: Laurel Terry

Professor at Penn State’s Dickinson Law, which is the older of Penn State’s two ABA-accredited law schools and is located in Carlisle, PA. I specialize in global lawyer regulation issues.

Dec. 28, 2018 Deadline for FASPE 2 week Fellowship for students & early career lawyers

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

In light of recent events, this announcement seems particularly timely:

FASPE (Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics) is now accepting applications for its 2019 Law program.

FASPE Law is a fully-funded, two-week fellowship program in professional ethics and ethical leadership that begins by examining the actions and choices of German lawyers in enabling Nazi policies. It then draws on this historical example to help Law Fellows both grasp their role as influencers in their field and in their communities as well as identify and confront the ethical issues currently facing lawyers and the legal profession. The program takes place in Germany and Poland at the sites of Nazi actions, allowing Fellows to benefit from the power of the place and immersive, contextual learning.

DETAILS
Program Dates: Saturday, May 25 – Friday, June 7, 2019.
Fully-funded: All program costs are covered, including travel, lodging, and food.
Interdisciplinary: FASPE Law Fellows travel with Fellows in the FASPE Business and Journalism programs.
Itinerary: Fellows will travel to Berlin, Krakow, and Oswiecim (the location of the former Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz).
Eligibility: Applicants must be currently enrolled in a JD or LLM (or equivalent) program OR have received such a degree between May 2017 and January 2019.

FASPE programs are non-denominational. Candidates of all nationalities, religions, and backgrounds are encouraged to apply. ASPE (Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics) is now accepting applications for its 2019 Law program.

Links to additional information appear below:

  • A one-page informational flyer available here
  • A social media image is available here
  • A sample syllabus from the 2018 program is available here
  • Our application page is accessible here

 

Early Career Scholarship for Dec. 2018 Melbourne Int’l Legal Ethics Conference

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

Thanks to the generosity of Prof. Deborah Rhode from Stanford, the International Association of Legal Ethics (IAOLE) has funds that likely will be used to fund an early career scholar’s attendance at the ILEC 2018 in Melbourne in December 2018.  For additional information about the Deborah Rhode prize for scholarship, see https://law.unimelb.edu.au/ilec2018#iaole-deborah-rhode-prize.

For information about ILEC 2018 and information about past ILEC conferences, see:

https://law.unimelb.edu.au/ilec2018 and

http://www.iaole.org/conferences/

(Hat tip: IAOLE President Prof. Alice Woolley, U. of Calgary)

 

 

Proposed Changes to DC Bar Admission Rules

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The DC Court of Appeals is seeking comments on whether it should “amend D.C. App. R. 46 relating to admission of graduates of non-accredited law schools.”   The proposed changes affect the rule that allows foreign LL.M. students to sit for the DC bar exam, as well as graduates of U.S. non-ABA accredited schools who have been in practice for less than 5 years.  Responses should be sent to the Clerk of the DC Court of Appeals by July 31, 2018.

In February 2018, the DC Board of Governors voted in favor of the proposed amendments that would, inter alia, change the bar eligibility requirements for foreign LL.M. students.  The proposed changes would reduce from 26 to 24 the number of U.S. legal education credits that provide a pathway for bar exam eligibility, change the required courses, and allow the same number of distance education courses as are permitted by ABA accreditation rules. The proposed new language, which is used in multiple locations in Rule 46, states:

Of such 24 credit hours, a total of six credit hours shalJ be earned in courses of study in the following subiects: two credit hours of instruction in professional responsibility (based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct or rules of professional conduct of a U.S. jurisdiction}; two credit hours of instruction in U.S. legal institutions (including the history, goals, structure, values, rules and responsibilities of the U.S. legal system); and two credit hours of instruction in common law legal reasoning, research, and writing. A minimum of six credit hours shall be earned in courses of study, each of which is substantially concentrated on a single subject tested on the Uniform Bar Examination.  The law school issuing the credit hours shall certify in writing that its courses comply with the specific course requirements in this rule. Any amount of such 24 credit hours may be completed through distance education from the ABA-accredited law school, provided the law school issuing the credit hours certifies in writing that its distance education methods comply with ABA distance education standards; 

The DC Bar’s February 2018 proposals were based on the Jan. 2018 Final Report from the DC Bar’s Global Legal Practice Task Force (“Task Force“).  The DC Bar’s transmittal letter begins on p. 3 of the Court’s Notice & Comment pdf; the Jan. 2018 Final Report begins on p. 11 of the pdf, and a redline version of the proposed changes begins on p. 25 of that Final Report, which starts at p. 41 of the Court’s Notice & Comment pdf.  As the DC Bar’s transmittal letter describes, the January Task Force 2018 Final Report and the February 2018 Board vote reflect comments the Task Force had received on its July 2017 consultation draft.

The topics addressed in this Notice and Comment are covered on pp. 3-4 of the Casebook (especially the “Global Perspective” box) and in Chapter 9(1). For information about why U.S.-based clients might want access to foreign-trained lawyers, see Diane F. Bosse, Testing Foreign-Trained Applicants in a New York State of Mind, 83(4) The Bar Examiner 31–37 (Dec. 2014); Laurel S. Terry, Admitting Foreign-Trained Lawyers in States Other than New York: Why it Matters, 83(4) Bar Examiner 38 (Dec. 2014).

Mayer Brown’s $1.6 Billion Malpractice Case is useful to teach “Who is the Client?” as well as conflicts & malpractice

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The ABA Journal has a nice summary of the recent Seventh Circuit decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the malpractice lawsuit against Mayer Brown, which represented General Motors, for the erroneous release of a 1.6 billion dollar security interest against General Motors. The plaintiffs were the lenders whose security interests were released.

The Court held that Mayer Brown didn’t owe a duty to third parties who aren’t clients and that Mayer Brown’s representation of JPMorgan Chase Bank in different matter did not create a duty of care in the loan/security interest matter.  According to the Court, Plaintiff had offered 3 theories as to why Mayer Brown owed a duty of care to plaintiffs:  (a) JP Morgan was a client of Mayer Brown in unrelated matters and thus not a third‐party non‐client; (b) even if JP Morgan was a third‐party non‐client, Mayer Brown assumed a duty to JP Morgan by drafting the closing documents; and (c) the primary purpose of the General Motors‐Mayer Brown relationship was to influence JPMorgan.

Among other things, the Court stated: ““Consider the consequences of the rule plaintiffs advocate, that a law firm owes a duty of care to a party adverse to its client because the adverse party is a client in unrelated matters and has waived the conflict of interest.”  The Court’s opinion is here.

Sample Engagement Letters from ACTEC

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) has released the third edition of its book with sample engagement letters:  Engagement Letters A Guide for Practitioners (3rd ed. 2017). It is also available as a free pdf.   These samples can be useful when teaching Chapter 2, Section III on Creating the Lawyer-Client Relationship. (Hat Tip to the Elder Law Prof Blog for this news item.)

P.S. For those who don’t know, ACTEC has also issued commentaries on the Model Rules.

Canadian Regulator Adopts a Cap on Referral Fees

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

On April 27, 2017, the Law Society of Upper Canada, which is the body that regulates lawyers in Canada’s largest province of Ontario, approved a set of recommendations that cap lawyer referral fees.   The action limits referral fees to 15% of the first $50,000 in legal fees and 5% thereafter, with an absolute cap of $25,000.  It adopted a standardized form for referral agreements that would be signed by everyone involved in a referral, including the referring lawyer, the lawyer getting the file and the client.

This action was based on a report issued by the Professional Regulation Committee’s Advertising & Referral Fee Arrangements Issues Working Group.   That Report is described in this new story and is available here (at Tab 4-2).

The U.S. counterpart to this issue is ABA Model Rule 1.5(e). Under Rule 1.5(e), a fee division among lawyers from different firms is proper if “the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing.”  That rule also requires that the feed division be in proportion to the work done or all lawyers assume “joint responsibility for the representation.”  Some states, such as Pennsylvania, have omitted the proportionality/joint responsibility clause, and other have omitted the “confirmed in a writing” requirement.

5 Year Prison Term for a Lawyer Using his IOLTA Account to Launder Money

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The ABA Journal and Law.com have reported the story of a San Diego lawyer who was sentenced to five years in prison for using his IOLTA account to facilitate money-laundering activities.  In his plea agreement, attorney Medina admitted  that he used his IOLTA account for the receipt, transport, and transmission of cash to international destinations and that he  “knew or had reason to know that the cash transactions described [therein] were proceeds of unlawful activity, or were intended to promote unlawful activity.”

This new story can be used in Chapter 2 when teaching Rule 1.2(d), which states that a lawyer “shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent….”   Although PR profs cannot possibly teach the substantive law of all crimes, I think it is important to make sure that our students are familiar with 18 U.S.C. § 1956.  Among other things, § 1956 makes it a felony “to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity.”   This means that activity that is perfectly legal in one context (such as forming one or more corporations) may be illegal if the purpose of that otherwise legal conduct is to hide the location or source of the proceeds of crime.  (The 60 Minutes/Global Witness videos and the Panama Papers leak can provide useful hypos for discussion).

The San Diego case shows students that lawyers who assist money laundering activity face criminal law sanctions, as well as disciplinary sanctions under Rule 1.2(d).   I found it noteworthy that the plea agreement with Attorney Medina recited that he knew or had reason to know that the money in his IOLTA account were proceeds of unlawful activity, or were intended to promote unlawful activity.

For additional information about the role of lawyers in preventing money-laundering, see this ABA Task Force webpage and the guidance provided by the ABA and jointly by the IBA, CCBE, and ABA about how to identify money-laundering red flags.  (I give my students a 2-page summary of the ABA’s red flags guidance.)

My other work about lawyers and money-laundering includes these slides about the potential impact on US lawyer regulation of FATF’s 4th Mutual Evaluation of the US; slides that focus on US efforts to educate lawyers about money-laundering; and slides and a 2 page handout that discuss how US lawyer regulation could be affected if US lawyers don’t recognize money laundering situations. My most recent article about this topic is available here.

New DC Data & Recommendations About Global Practice

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

In May 2016, the DC Bar issued the Interim Report of its Global Legal Practice Task Force.  In June 2016, the Board of Governors of the DC Bar approved the report’s recommendations.  As the DC press release noted, “D.C. Bar members practice in 83 countries, and nearly 1,500 of the Bar’s 101,500 members live and work abroad. Fifty-four percent of the Bar’s domestic members were very or somewhat interested in expanding their international practices within the next five years …with 57 percent of that number indicating that they expect to expand their practices during that time.”

The DC Bar sent separate surveys to bar members located in the US, bar members located outside the US, and Special [Foreign] Legal Consultants.  To my knowledge, this is the first survey of its kind, in which bar members were asked demographic data about their practices and qualifications, as well as questions about the ways in which they currently interact with the DC Bar and the services they would like.   Anyone who is interested in the globalization of legal practice will find the Interim Report an interesting read.

The DC Bar press release announcing Board approval of the recommendations summarized the Task Force work as follows:

To best achieve its charge, the Task Force divided its study into three areas: examining how best to serve domestic Bar members with international practices and clients, and Bar members who live and work overseas (outbound); studying the rules by which lawyers from foreign countries can be admitted and licensed to practice in the District (inbound); and studying developments in alternative business models being employed by law firms domestically and in other countries. The interim report reflects the recommendations of the outbound subgroup and a recommendation to conduct ongoing study of alternative business structures and multi-disciplinary practice. The Task Force’s work continues on issues about the regulation, admission, and practice of foreign-educated lawyers in the District of Columbia.

 The Task Force’s proposals for outbound members fell into three broad categories: connections or networking, resources, and education and professional development.

Highlights of the proposals for short-term implementation recommend that the Bar should:

• Develop networking opportunities with substantive content for smaller groups of domestic Bar members with international legal practices.

• Improve the exchange of information about resources, education, and networking for all members engaged in the practice of cross-border and international law.

• Create varying “expertise” levels of educational programming in international law topics for all members and develop marketing for this programming.

• Develop educational programming about issues in international practice that all members often encounter: multi-country litigation; record keeping; e-discovery training and tools; conflicting legal ethics rules; attorney-client privilege abroad; and data security and privacy.

Highlights of the proposals for long-term implementation recommend that the Bar should:

• Facilitate informal gatherings of its members residing in specific regions of the world where these members commonly live and practice, such as Canada, China, France, and the United Kingdom.

• Facilitate networking between members who reside and practice outside the United States and local business groups.

• Partner with international groups and organizations based in Washington, D.C., for hosting networking events with domestic members with international practices.

• Develop and maintain a list of volunteer “resource attorneys” by international law subject matters or by conducting business in specific regions of the world.

California Continues its Work to Update its Ethics Rules (and switch to the ABA Model Rules Format)

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

California’s Second Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct continues its work to update California’s ethics rules (and switch to the ABA Model Rules format).  The Commission’s website includes a page where it regularly posts its draft rules for comment.  For example, in April 2016 the Commission posted its proposed drafts of Rules 1.2, 1.7, and 7.1-7.5, among other rules.  In May 2016 the Commission posted drafts of Rules 3.3-3.6 and a proposed rule dealing with prosecutorial responsibilities.    The June 2016 column by State Bar of California President David Pasternak urged California lawyers to submit their comments to the Commission.  Given California’s size and influence, this work deserves careful consideration by all lawyers.

Second Circuit Finds New York’s In-state Office Requirement Constitutional

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

On April 22, 2016, the Second Circuit decided SCHOENEFELD v. SCHNEIDERMAN, et. al.  In a 2-1 decision, the Second Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case with instructions to the court to award judgment to the defendants.  The Second Circuit majority upheld the constitutionality of New York’s rule that requires an instate office.  Relying on

McBurney v. Young, 133 S. Ct. 1709 (2013), the Court held, inter alia, that “in the absence of any proof that that statute’s in‐state office requirement was enacted for a protectionist purpose”, plaintiff could not prevail.

The suit was filed in 2008 by Ekaterina Schoenefeld, who was a New Jersey resident. She had cited the Privileges & Immunity Clause and argued that the policy, which blocked her from practicing in New York despite passing the bar there and meeting all other requirements, served no substantial state interest.  She had noted that New York residents need not have a physical office in New  York and may practice from their homes.   This argument was not successful.  The opinions are quite lengthy – 31 pages for the majority and 25 pages for the dissent. The ABA Journal has a story about the case here about and there is Wall Street Journal article here.

Although the Court held that it was constitutional for New York to have an in-state office requirement, the decision does not require such a rule.  At some point, New York might want to revisit this issue.   In addition to its domestic implications, this ruling has the potential to reduce the number of foreign-admitted lawyers who annually sit for New York’s bar exam. See Diane Bosse, Testing Foreign-Trained Applicants in a New York State of Mind.   New York’s in-state office rule could affect the attractiveness of the New York license as a global credential.

ABA Adopts a Resolution Endorsing the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE)

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

On Feb. 8, 2016, the ABA House of Delegates adopted a resolution that “urges the bar admission authorities in each state and territory to adopt expeditiously the Uniform Bar Examination.”

This is relevant when teaching Chapter 2 (and also for our students’ futures.) For more information, see the NCBE’s UBE webpage.

ABA Adopts Regulatory Objectives Resolution

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

On Monday, Feb. 8, 2016, the ABA House of Delegates adopted a revised and amended version of the Regulatory Objectives Resolution.  The original proposal is here.  The language that was added stated:

FURTHER RESOLVED, that nothing contained in this Resolution abrogates in any manner existing ABA policy prohibiting non lawyer ownership of law firms or the core values adopted by the House of Delegates in Resolution 10F, adopted on July 11, 2000.

In my view, the resolution always was about encouraging jurisdictions to think about “why” they regulate and what they are trying to accomplish, not “what is regulated.”  The Resolution “urges that each state’s highest court, and those of each territory and tribe, be guided by the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives for the Provision of Legal Services when they assess [regulatory issues].”  I hope that each U.S. jurisdiction will now decide to adopt its own regulatory objectives (and will think about whether it wants to use the ABA’s model objectives verbatim or adapt a variation such as those recommended here, those set forth in this appendix, or those adopted in 2014 in Nova Scotia.)

ABA Issues Final Model Regulatory Objectives (to be voted on Feb. 2016)

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services has issued its final Resolution & Report: Regulatory Objectives.   This Resolution is scheduled for a vote at the February 2016 San Diego ABA Midyear Meeting.  The draft objectives can provide the basis for a useful discussion in Chapters 2 and 9 regarding the purpose of regulation.  (The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual article about these regulatory objectives is available here.)

Full disclosure:  I am on record as supporting regulatory objectives.  As I explained in my Oct. 30, 2015 comment letter, I believe that regardless of what one thinks about recent market and regulatory developments, it is useful to have regulatory objectives:

My final comment is that it is important for the Commission and ABA members not to allow controversies about regulatory developments in the United States or elsewhere to derail the discussion about Model Regulatory Objectives.  Many of the recent lawyer regulatory developments have been quite controversial.  As I have noted in several articles, one way to think about both market and lawyer regulation developments is that they present issues regarding the “who-what-when-where-why-and-how” of lawyer regulation.    For example, the North Carolina Dental Board case and the 2007 UK Legal Services Act raise issues about who it is that should regulate lawyers; LLLT, entity regulation, and ABS developments raise issues about what it is that should be regulated; the UK’s outcomes focused regulation raises questions about how regulation should occur.  While these who-what-when-where-why-and-how issues have become intertwined in particular jurisdictions, it is important for U.S. jurisdictions to recognize that these issues are separable. 

I believe that it is exceedingly important for a jurisdiction to ask itself the “why” question – why does the jurisdiction regulate lawyers and what it is trying to accomplish?  I don’t think that asking the question of why a jurisdiction regulates presupposes a particular answer to one of the controversial “who-what-when-where-or-how” lawyer regulation issues.  Moreover, failing to ask the “why do we regulate?” question doesn’t mean that the difficult issues are going to go away.  Whether one likes it or not, there are market and regulatory developments in the United States and elsewhere that will be cited during regulatory debates.   If a regulator can say what it is trying to achieve, its response to a particular issue – whatever that response is – should be more thoughtful and should have more credibility.  It seems to me that this is in everyone’s interest. 

 

Chapter 4, Confidentiality, and a New EU Case on Lawyer Surveillance

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

If you are looking for a way to introduce cutting-edge issues into Chapter 4 on lawyer confidentiality, you can refer to a CCBE press release about an October 27, 2015 decision from the Dutch Court of Appeals regarding lawyer surveillance.  The CCBE is the acronym for the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents the bars and law societies in the EU. The press release included the following summary of the background of the case:

“In May of this year the CCBE successfully intervened before The Hague District Court in a challenge brought against the Dutch State by the law firm Prakken d’Oliveira and the Dutch Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers (NVSA). The Court was questioned on the legality of eavesdropping by domestic intelligence agencies on lawyers’ calls and communications. In its verdict delivered on July 1st, the court recognised that the ability to communicate confidentially with a lawyer is a fundamental right which is currently being breached under Dutch surveillance policy. The court therefore ordered the Dutch government to stop all interception of communications between clients and their lawyers under the current regime within six months. In response, the Dutch State fast-tracked an appeal against the judgement.  On 25 August, the CCBE challenged the grounds of the appeal.”

The CCBE press release reported that the Dutch Court of Appeal had upheld the trial court’s ruling, noting that:

“In its ruling, the Dutch Court of Appeal dismissed all the grounds of appeal alleged by the Dutch State. The Court indicates that according to case law of the European Court of Human Rights surveillance activities must be subject to review by an independent body with the power to prevent or terminate potential infringements of professional secrecy.”

The CCBE press release contains links to the court decisions (in Dutch) and news stories.  Additional information is found on this CCBE Surveillance Working Group webpage.  This CCBE webpage also has confidentiality-related information.

NOBC Posts Resources on Global Developments

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The National Organization of Bar Counsel (NOBC) is an organization “of legal professionals whose members enforce ethics rules that regulate the professional conduct of lawyers who practice law in the United States, Canada and Australia.”  When she was president of the NOBC, Tracy Kepler created an International Committee, which decided to create 4 subcommittees to investigate and provide information to NOBC  members about four areas of inquiry: Alternative Business Structures; Entity Regulation; Alternative Licensure ; and State and International Reciprocity

The work product from these committees has now been posted on a new NOBC “Global Resources” webpage.  These new pages contain useful information.  For example, the FAQ document about Entity Regulation was prepared with input from current or former US, Australian, Canadian and UK regulators, along with academics.   (The Entity Regulation Committee plans to update its materials periodically.)  These materials can be particularly useful when teaching Chapter 2, Chapter 3 (fee splitting) and Chapter 9.

ABA Commission issues Draft Regulatory Objectives

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The ABA Commission on the Future of Legal Services has circulated for discussion a draft Resolution and Report on “ABA Model Regulatory Objectives.”   The draft resolution “urges each state’s highest court, and those of each territory and tribe, to be guided by the ABA Model Regulatory Objectives to help (1) assess the court’s existing regulatory framework and (2) identify and implement regulatory innovations related to legal services beyond the traditional regulation of the legal profession.”  The ABA’s proposed Model Regulatory Objectives are similar, but not identical, to those included in Section 1 of the 2007 UK Legal Services Act, in Nova Scotia, and suggested by some commentators.

The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual has a story about  the regulatory objectives here.

Third Circuit affirms lower court opinion finding Pennsylvania’s reciprocity admission rule constitutional

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The Third Circuit recently affirmed the lower court’s opinion that found Pennsylvania Rule of Admission 204 constitutional.  This rule allows experienced attorneys to be admitted to the Pennsylvania bar without taking the Pennsylvania bar exam provided they are barred in a “reciprocal state,” that is, a state that similarly admits Pennsylvania attorneys by motion without requiring them to take that state’s bar exam.

Regulator(s) for English barristers approve changes to the “cab rank rule” regarding the “duty to accept” cases

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is the “frontline” regulator for barristers in England and Wales; the overarching regulator is the Legal Services Board (LSB).

Yesterday the LSB approved a proposal from the BSB to change the “cab rank rule” which says, in essence,  that barristers are required to accept clients who request their services.  (In other words, they are similar to “taxi cabs” and have to accept the person who “hailed” their services.)

The new rule allows barristers to refuse work from a professional client who, in the reasonable opinion of the barrister, presents an unacceptable credit risk.  (The previous rule only allowed barristers to decline work from solicitors on a specified list.)  For information on the history of this rule and the consultations, see here and here.

For those teaching Professional Responsibility, the English cab rank rule, even as amended, can be contrasted with the ABA Model Rules.  The only mandatory ABA Model Rule that contains a “duty to accept” cases is found in ABA Model Rule 6.2 regarding court appointments. (Rule 6.1 encourages but does not require the acceptance of a certain number of pro bono cases).

July 2015 International Conference of Legal Regulators’ materials online

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The International Conference of Legal Regulators is a group of regulators that first met in London in September 2012.  The idea behind the ICLR is that those who regulate lawyers face similar issues and would benefit by global conversations on these topics.  (For example, regulators around the world face issues related to the impact of technology, globalization, & market disruption and issues of substance abuse by lawyers).

The ICLR met in San Francisco in 2013 (in conjunction with the NOBC meeting), London in 2014, and Toronto in 2015.    You can access the materials from the 2015 Toronto ICLR Conference here; the materials from prior conferences are available as links from the current ICLR homepage.   For more information about the creation of the ICLR, see this article about its formation. Legal profession regulators have been slower to form international networks than have some other types of regulators – for example, there are international networks of banking, antitrust, and medical regulators.

Blog Discussion of 2nd Circuit decision that Skadden contract lawyers are [potentially] entitled to overtime pay because they weren’t engaged in the practice of law

Laurel TerryLeave a comment

The Faculty Lounge has a lengthy post discussing the recent Second Circuit decision reversing the FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal of a potential class action lawsuit by a contract lawyer doing document review for Skadden.  (The story also appeared in a recent ABA e-Journal article.)  The blog post – and comments – are worth reading. (As of this morning, however, I didn’t think the 11 blog comments sufficiently addressed the relationship between UPL laws and the UPL safe harbor provision found in Rule 5.5 and which view of UPL would “trump,” given the fact that in many states, these two stem from different branches of government).