The good news is that lawyer mobility and client choice of counsel are firmly rooted in New York jurisprudence and public policy. This means that lawyers can freely compete with their former firms and that their clients can, without restraint, choose to be represented by the lawyer and firm of their choice. It also means that firms’ efforts to encroach on lawyer mobility and client choice of counsel will not be tolerated. So far, so good. The inevitable corollary bad news, however, (the proverbial other side of the coin, if you will) is that law firms, never ones to take bad news lying down, remain determined to find an enforceable means of holding on to their productive partners and their clients and some continue to try, unsuccessfully for the most part, to stem the tide of departures by including financial disincentives or penalties in law firm agreements when partners depart and compete.1
In this month’s column, we briefly analyze some of the relevant rules and law governing lawyer mobility and client choice of counsel and then discuss a recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which addresses this issue.
Law Firm Non-Competes
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
