fails to make a showing that Mr. Pozner was an individual authorized to give legal advice. Mr.Pozner may be a member
the bar in Canada, but he has never been a member
the bar inNew York, where he was employed by Robocast. New York has a licensing mechanism thatallows a foreign attorney to render legal advice as a "legal consultant." N.Y. C.L.S. Ct.
App.§ 521.1. This would have allowed Mr. Pozner to enjoy "the rights and obligation
[New York] with respect to
attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege andsimilar professional privileges."
at 521.1 (b )(2). There is zero indication, however, that Mr.Pozner applied for or received the legal consultant license. Thus, any advice Mr. Pozner offered
Robocast was not legal advice as defined by the New York State Bar.
therefore cannot beassumed
be privileged. In fact, the very argument that Mr. Pozner offered legal advice toRobocast without the
approval necessarily asserts he was guilty
practicing law without a license, which is a criminal misdemeanor in New York.
478,485.Robocast's reliance on
98 F.R.D. 442 (D. Del. 1982)is not persuasive. That case involved a district court's recognition that attorney-client privilegeprotected the legal work
French attorneys operating in accordance with French laws.
at444. Here, Robocast asks the Court to apply the privilege to purported legal work done by aforeign attorney in the United States who would have been necessarily operating outside thelegal bounds
is thus inapplicable. Robocast also indicates that it should beprotected by the attorney-client privilege because
a supposed "reasonable
Pozner's employment title of"Director
Business Development" suggests his actual duties were on thebusiness side. The Court has not conducted an
the disputed documents to determine the actualcharacter
the work he performed. The Court
no way means to suggest that there
any factual basis to believe
committed a crime.
Case 1:11-cv-00235-RGA Document 220 Filed 04/17/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 8018