A law firm can terminate an at-will lawyer who refuses to sign an agreement prohibiting them from soliciting the firm’s customers or clients following cessation of employment, according to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. In Greissman v. Rawlings and Associates, PLLC, the court held that where a non-solicitation agreement included a savings clause which excepted the solicitation of legal work from where “to the extent necessary to comply with the rules of professional responsibility applicable attorneys,” it did not violate those rules as a matter of law. This is consistent with what we have previously written on this issue; so long as there is no restriction on the practice of law, post-employment restrictive covenants do not necessarily run afoul of states’ Rules of Professional Conduct (in most states, Rule 5.6, which is generally intended to protect clients, not attorneys).
Latest Post
More Posts
Rhode Island Joins the Fray, Passing Legislation that Restricts the Use of Non-Compete Agreements for Certain Low-Wage Workers
Washington State Governor Signs Law Severely Limiting Non-Competes
Washington State Lawmakers Seek to Partially Ban Non-Competes
Fed Seeks to Bar Two Bankers for Life for Stealing Confidential Information
Proposed Federal Non-Compete Legislation Could Have Unintended Consequences
Seyfarth Attorneys to Participate in AIPLA’s 2018 Annual Meeting
Webinar Recap! The Anatomy of a Trade Secret Audit
D.C. Circuit Questions English’s Standing to Challenge CFPB Control
Start-Up Car Companies Clash in Electrifying Trade Secrets Case
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Firm/Org