in the direction of the enterprise. In reaching that decision, we stressed that "[t]he primary fact leading us to this conclusion is the nature of the 'enterprise' [plaintiff] has depicted, as both [defendants] are alleged to be members of an 'association-in-fact' enterprise constituting the RICO enterprise.” Id. at 979. In this case, by contrast, the enterprise alleged is New Vision, not an association-in-fact. Dr. Wallach, Direct and October are not alleged to be part of the enterprise and therefore cannot be said to conduct the affairs of the enterprise by implementing the decisions of upper management. Instead, these defendants are best characterized as contractors hired by the enterprise to perform specific tasks. 4 . Cf. Baumer v. Pachl, 8 F.3d 1341, 1344-45 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Stone v. Kirk, 8 F.3d 1079, 1092 (6th
holding that attorney who knowingly assisted enterprise in execution of fraudulent scheme by providing legal services and advice could not be held liable under  1962c because his role was at all times limited to the provision of legal services and did not extend to operation or management of enterprise holding that plaintiff who provided similar services which were arguably attendant care services under state law fell within the exemption holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed holding that legal services attorney lacked standing to challenge state court judges alleged retaliation against clients represented by legal services for using legal services relying upon article iii and younger comity holding that attorney who simply provided legal services to corporation did not participate in operation or management of enterprise regardless of whether he performed those services well or poorly properly or improperly