A class action lawsuit for overtime pay brought by an attorney working through a staffing firm on a document review project was dismissed last week by a federal judge in New York, according to court records.

David Lola worked on the project for 15 weeks starting in April 2012. He claimed to log 45 to 55 hours per week, but received the same rate of $25 per hour for all time worked despite putting in more than 40 hours per week. He sued the buyer — law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP — as well as staffing supplier Tower Legal Staffing.

Defendants argued Lola was not owed overtime because licensed attorneys engaged in the practice of law are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime provisions.

Lola’s case was complicated because he did document review work in North Carolina although he was not licensed as an attorney in that state — he was a licensed attorney in California. In addition, the case he worked on was multi-district litigation based in Ohio, and staffing buyer Skadden is based in New York.

In addition, Lola argued “the document review he performed was not the practice of law because it was so ‘mechanical’ that a paralegal could have done it.”

However, the court agreed with defendants, deciding Lola was a licensed attorney engaged in the practice of law and exempt from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s overtime provision.

The court ruled since Lola performed all his work in North Carolina, that state’s standard must be used in determining whether he practiced law. North Carolina allows attorneys with licenses in other states to perform some types of work.

 “To the extent that this result is unwise or unfair, especially in light of the employment prospects that many licensed attorneys now face, Congress and the [Department of Labor] remain free to revisit the regulation or to promulgate a uniform standard that more narrowly defines the ‘practice of law,’” according to the opinion. “Until they do so, however, the court is constrained to apply the regulation as written and to apply the definition of ‘practice of law’ that is prevailing in the relevant state — here, North Carolina.”