If a machine can do it - its NOT UPL.

The U.S. Appellate Case for the Second Federal District, Lola v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, No. 14-3845 (2d Cir. 2015) interests me for reasons other than its stance on labor laws. I'm interested in the part about, if a machine can do it, then its not UPL.

David Lola who brought the case along with others who were in the same position, while working for a legal temporary employment agency reviewing documents. For this he was paid $25. per hour. His job was to go through the documents and search for certain words and phrases; categorize the documents; and mark other words and phrases to be redacted. (It sounds mind numbing). His place of employment was at a law firm in North Carolina [Skadden, et al].

Lola worked more than forty hours per week, but wasn't paid time and half for hours over forty. His employers' position was that he was not entitled to overtime pay because he was a professional and an attorney. They cited exemptions in the labor laws for overtime pay for professionals and attorneys. Lola argued that the work he was doing was not practicing law, because the work required absolutely no legal judgment.

He eventually won his case. The opinion included some interesting language.

“The gravamen of 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 Defendants. 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.”

The reason I find this so interesting is that document preparers are frequently investigated for the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). And if the law of the land is that if it could be automated then its not practicing law, we could use that argument in almost every investigation against one of us. Its not exactly the law of the land, it is the law in the Second Federal District, but still persuasive.

Document preparers prepare documents. We don't provide legal advice or legal judgment. Certainly a lot of what we do could be done by artificial intelligence (AI), aka machines, aka computer software. Our activities may not be commonly done by AI but they could. A computer could automatically format documents, intake information, ask questions, and so on. A computer program can certainly know when to ask additional questions and use if/then logic.

So … since a computer could certainly do what I do in preparing documents, then that must mean that nothing I do can be considered the unauthorized practice of law. Right?