{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0183206106870229, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.963636363636364, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Glatt v. Fox Searchlight and the Rhetorical Value of Inter-Circuit Dialogue

In Glatt v. Fox Searchlight, the Second Circuit addressed the question of whether and when a worker is a properly unpaid intern, or an improperly unpaid employee. In the course of its decision, it cited very little previous authority on the subject – existing authority directly on point on many issues before the court. This essay addresses the rhetorical and analytical best practice of reviewing and engaging previous authority to reach a legal conclusion, concluding that the trust between reader and writer is violated when expectations of inter-circuit dialogue are unmet.