Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Covenants Not To Compete: For Everyone At The Firm Except Attorneys?
A covenant not to compete is an increasingly popular device employers use to bind employees not to work for, or as, a direct competitor. The restriction is usually limited in time and to a particular geographical area. Such covenants are most often found in employment contracts, but they can also be a separate document, signed by the employee at hiring, during employment, or upon leaving. However, in many states, a covenant not to compete cannot stand alone as a binding agreement, but must be ancillary to an employment or other type of contract that provides some benefit to the employee. See, eg, Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, 861 P.2d 531 (Wyo. 1996). Covenants not to compete in contracts for the sale of a business are more readily enforced than those in employment agreements because of the relative absence of public policy concerns, detailed below. While covenants not to compete may be used by employers in certain court-delineated circumstances, ethical rules specifically bar the application of such restrictive covenants to attorneys.
Employers favor covenants not to compete as a means of guarding trade secrets and other proprietary business information that employees obtain on the job, and also as a way to protect their market share by barring former employees from entering into a competitive business. The primary rationale against the enforcement of such covenants is the judiciary's disinclination to impede employees from earning a living in their chosen field. Covenants not to compete limit an employee's ability to obtain work and also restrain competition and trade in general. As such, covenants not to compete are disfavored by courts and narrowly construed. See, eg, Duneland Emergency Physician's Medical Group v. Brunk, 723 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Although courts can be reluctant to enforce covenants not to compete, employers may at times bank on the legal fees attendant to defending against such claims to deter employees from competitive activity. See, eg, Eve Tahmincioglu, “Compete with Caution against Past Employer: Legal Challenges May Face the Unwary,” N.Y. Times, Thursday, March 31, 2005, at C7.
The Standard for Non-Attorneys
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.