header-logo header-logo

18 October 2018 / David Fisher
Issue: 7813 / Categories: Features , Profession
printer mail-detail

When a good lawyer jumps ship (Pt 2)

For optimum protection, firms need to ensure that restrictive covenants contain the right contractual terms & that the proper steps are taken to enforce them, as David Fisher explains

  • Whatever type of restrictive covenants partners are subject to, it is important that firms keep the restrictions under review and update them to account for changes in their business and developments in the law.

Some partnerships and LLPs choose not to impose post-termination restrictive covenants on their partners or members. This might be for cultural reasons, or (especially in small or new firms) because no partner or member wants to be prevented from competing with the firm or acting for their clients for a period of time if they happen to be the one who decides to leave. However, the majority of firms want the protection that good restrictive covenants can give to their business, and this means having the right contractual terms in the first place and taking proper steps to enforce them. Part one of this series covered the general

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll