Federal labour laws prohibit lawyers earning overtime when they exceed the 40 hours threshold for carrying out legal work. Document review is traditionally counted as legal work. However, David Lola argues that the nature of document review is so mundane that it should not be classified as legal work. 

Exploitation

Other contract lawyers see Mr Lola's case against Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom as a rallying cry. Members of the United Contract Attorneys group have been in attendance for Mr Lola's case, to give him support. Arguments are now being heard in the case in the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals. The three judges are to decide whether to overturn a dismissal of Mr Lola's case by a district court judge in September. The suit was filed in 2013 and says: 'The legal services industry has for years been exploiting individuals with law degrees looking for short-term work.' 

Quinn Emanuel case pending

Mr Lola's counsel, D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, said that for work to qualify as legal it would need to include 'some engagement of legal judgment or application of legal knowledge'. Mr Kirschenbaum said that the $25 per hour document review did not need such engagement or judgment. A similar case against Quinn Emanuel is awaiting the outcome of Mr Lola's. Source: Wall Street Journal