4 ms·

You're right. Non-solicitation agreements and non-compete agreements serve slightly different and overlapping purposes. Technically, non-solicitation agreement

You're right. Non-solicitation agreements and non-compete agreements serve slightly different and overlapping purposes. Technically, non-solicitation agreements only prevent solicitation. So they can bar me from hopping to a competitor and calling up all my old clients to bring them over. They don't prevent me from joining a competitor, having all my old clients find out, and having them then decide to join me. Thus, a non-compete is often simply a stronger form of non-solicitation. That's also why you sometimes see non-compete agreements which apply to a geographic area. They're also often regulated in tandem. AFAIK, both are unenforceable in California. For what it's worth, I think the harms done by non-competes far outweigh this limited argument. But you can't argue that there isn't an argument.

DannyBee 10y ago
"They don't prevent me from joining a competitor, having all my old clients find out, and having them then decide to join me." That's on your clients though, and their call. You have done literally nothing to make that happen, and it's unrelated to you leaving or not. If the other firm hires a superstar lawyer, they may do the same thing. This is essentially "not an evil we should prevent" :) " But you can't argue that there isn't an argument." I think there are good arguments for non-solicits. I don't still don't see any for non-competes. That is because I don't think "try and indirectly prevent people unrelated from employee from doing things" is a valid argument for directly restricting employee movement, instead of directly dealing with the behavior at hand. If having clients move is really just that harmful, make it part of the contract with the clients. They sign retainer and other agreements, require they not move for x number of days upon their current contact leaving the firm, or else they pay you damages for jumping ship. (i'm a lawyer, so i'm aware this would run afoul of most states ethics rules, i'm just pointing out there are valid ways to deal with this that make sense, all things being equal. )
- morgante 10y ago
  > You have done literally nothing to make that happen, and it's unrelated to you leaving or not. It's obviously not unrelated. The lawyer they had been working with leaves the firm. They (obviously) find out and this causes them to decide to re-evaluate their choice of firm. They find out where you jumped ship to and go there. Thus their move is a direct result of you moving firms without requiring solicitation. Like I said, I don't think it's a sufficiently good argument to justify non-competes. But it's absolutely an argument that people make. Restricting the client is of course another avenue. It's certainly a major contribution to discounts for long-term contracts.

DannyBee 10y ago

"They don't prevent me from joining a competitor, having all my old clients find out, and having them then decide to join me." That's on your clients though, and their call. You have done literally nothing to make that happen, and it's unrelated to you leaving or not. If the other firm hires a superstar lawyer, they may do the same thing. This is essentially "not an evil we should prevent" :) " But you can't argue that there isn't an argument." I think there are good arguments for non-solicits. I don't still don't see any for non-competes. That is because I don't think "try and indirectly prevent people unrelated from employee from doing things" is a valid argument for directly restricting employee movement, instead of directly dealing with the behavior at hand. If having clients move is really just that harmful, make it part of the contract with the clients. They sign retainer and other agreements, require they not move for x number of days upon their current contact leaving the firm, or else they pay you damages for jumping ship. (i'm a lawyer, so i'm aware this would run afoul of most states ethics rules, i'm just pointing out there are valid ways to deal with this that make sense, all things being equal. )

morgante 10y ago
> You have done literally nothing to make that happen, and it's unrelated to you leaving or not. It's obviously not unrelated. The lawyer they had been working with leaves the firm. They (obviously) find out and this causes them to decide to re-evaluate their choice of firm. They find out where you jumped ship to and go there. Thus their move is a direct result of you moving firms without requiring solicitation. Like I said, I don't think it's a sufficiently good argument to justify non-competes. But it's absolutely an argument that people make. Restricting the client is of course another avenue. It's certainly a major contribution to discounts for long-term contracts.