January 27, 2022 Comments (0) Uncategorised

Are Non Competes Enforceable against Lawyers

The American Bar Association`s (ABA) non-compete clause for lawyers is designed to protect the “professional autonomy” of lawyers and ensure “the freedom of clients” to choose the lawyer of their choice. Almost all states have adopted the same or similar version of this rule in their local rules of attorney ethics. For example, the State of Florida, which regulates licensed attorneys in Florida, has adopted the above rule word for word as Florida`s rule of professional conduct 4-5.6. This means that non-compete obligations that directly restrict the right of an attorney in Florida are not enforceable in Florida. Most States have adopted a similar rule that prohibits agreements that restrict the right of a lawyer to exercise that right. New Jersey Ethics Advisory 708 and New York Ethics Advisory 858 both highlight the “one size fits all” approach to restrictive alliances, which is a recurring theme in this series. These two ethical opinions also show that an employer could ask lawyers who are generally considered insensitive to restrictions on their ability to exercise the right in certain circumstances to accept certain types of restrictions aimed at protecting an employer`s legitimate business interests. In all situations, there may be different types of restrictive agreements aimed at protecting commercial interests and preventing competition, including non-disclosure, prohibition of solicitation or assignment of inventions. Each of these restrictions should be assessed separately.

The ABA`s recent restrictive covenant opinion, Formal Notice 94-381, considered whether a contract of employment prohibiting a management consultant from representing someone against the company in the future would be inadmissible under Rule 5.6. The ABA concluded that it would do so, arguing that restricting a lawyer to represent a lawyer with interests contrary to the business would unduly prevent a lawyer from practising his profession. In addition, it would restrict public access to lawyers who, because of their background and experience, could be the best lawyers available for their representation. The ABA noted that any concerns about the firm`s privacy interests would be sufficiently addressed by Rule 1.9 and that, therefore, any additional restrictions would unnecessarily undermine a strong policy in favour of free choice of counsel. Aba Standard Rule 5.6 deals with restrictions on the right of a lawyer after termination of employment. The rule provides that a lawyer cannot enter into an “agreement of persons, shareholder, operation, employment or similar agreements” that restrict a lawyer`s right to practise after the end of the relationship. The model rule has been widely accepted, with 49 States adopting it or a modified version of the rule or its predecessor. The rule has also been applied consistently in the context of law firms, with the vast majority of cases and ethics opinions holding that such agreements between lawyers are unenforceable. For example, Connecticut, Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington have all issued ethical opinions that state that the non-compete obligation for lawyers is unenforceable. Most of these views stem from abA Model Rule 5.6, which provides that a lawyer does not enter into “an agreement of persons, shareholder, operation, employment or other similar types that limit a lawyer`s right to practise after the end of the relationship.” 8.

In this case, however, the applicant has another option, namely to accept the employer`s offer to include language in the agreement, according to which the “do not ask agreement” clause is enforceable and can only be invoked to the extent that the language complies with Rule 5.6(a)(1) or any other applicable rule. In our view, this additional wording would remove any doubt as to whether the clause would unduly affect the lawyer`s right to work as a lawyer after the end of the employment relationship. In general, post-employment non-compete obligations that directly limit a lawyer`s ability to practice law are not enforceable in private law firms in the United States. The American Bar Association`s Standard Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 prohibits a lawyer from “entering into an agreement of persons, a shareholder, an operation, an employment, or any other similar type of agreement that restricts a lawyer`s right to practise after the end of the relationship, with the exception of a pension benefits agreement.” Comments on this rule reflect the ABA`s view that the lawyers` non-competition clause is intended to protect the “professional autonomy” of lawyers and to ensure “the freedom of clients” to choose the lawyer of their choice […].

Comments are closed.