Posts

Mexican Labor Law Amendment Abolishes Outsourcing of Personnel

On April 23, 2021, an amendment to the Mexican Labor Law was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation. Below are the key points about the amendment and how they will affect employers that outsource or subcontract work.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

According to the amendment, employers are no longer permitted to subcontract or outsource personnel. The law covers any individual or legal entity providing employees to be supervised and managed by a third-party client and that determines the services and work to be rendered. The law includes carve outs and exceptions under certain circumstances.

  • Specialized Services
    • The amendment permits the subcontracting of specialized services that are not part of the core business in terms of the company’s corporate purpose and activity registered before the Tax Administration Service (or Servicio de Administración Tributaria (SAT). Services will be considered specialized provided that they are not part of the core business of the company that receives them—the so-called “operating entity.”)
  • Companies in the Same Corporate Group
    • The amendment allows companies within the same corporate group, i.e., the “former service entity,” to render services or activities.
  • Employment Agencies
    • According to the amendment, employment agencies or intermediaries, which were previously referred to as “outsourcing companies”) may participate only in recruitment, selection, and training of candidates. The amendment states that the company receiving the services must be the one that conducts hiring.
  • Profit-Sharing Cap
    • Because some companies have attempted to avoid tax liabilities, they have adopted the practice of creating distinct companies that employ their workers. These companies are currently required to distribute 10 percent of the company’s taxable profits (PTU) to employees. The new amendment establishes a cap on these profit-sharing obligations. As a result, a maximum limit of three months’ salary or the average of the amount received in the last three years—whichever is more favorable to the employee—is now in place.

KEY OBLIGATIONS

  • Companies Providing Subcontracting Services
    • Companies that provide subcontracting services are required under the amendment to take the following actions:
  1. Obtain the registration certificate before the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare or Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, (STPS). Among other obligations, the company must evidence that its tax and social security obligations are up to date. Companies are required to renew the certificate of registration every three years.
  2. Execute a contract for the provision of the specialized services.
  3. Submit a quarterly report to Mexico’s Social Security agency (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social or IMSS ) and Mexico’s housing agency, Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores or INFONAVIT on the specialized services contracts executed.
  4. Provide the contractor with a copy of the registration certificate before the STPS, tax receipts for payments of salaries, payment of withholding taxes and employer’s contributions and the value-added tax return, and a copy of the corresponding payment voucher.
  • Companies Contracting Specialized Services
    • Companies that provide specialized services are required under the amendment to take the following actions:
  1. Verify that specialized services are not part of company’s core business.
  2. Verify that the company providing the subcontracting services is registered before the STPS.
  3. Collect copies of:
    1. registration certificates before STPS;
    2. tax receipts for payments of salaries;
    3. receipts of payments of withholding taxes and payments of employer contributions; and
    4. value added tax returns and their corresponding payments.

CONSEQUENCES OF NONCOMPLIANCE

  • Labor
    • In the case of noncompliance, companies may be subject to fines of up to USD$222,000 and even incarceration of a company’s representatives.
  • Tax
    • Companies will not be able to credit or deduct taxes for subcontracting services, unless they fulfill the above requirements.
  • Criminal
    • Companies that do not comply with subcontracting obligations and attempt to deduct or credit taxes for the services of subcontracted personnel, or use simulation schemes for the provision of specialized services, will be subject to criminal liability for fraud.
    • Both the company that subcontracts and the one that employs subcontractors may be held jointly and severally liable for all labor, social security, and tax obligations, which they would have otherwise been obligated to pay.

What are the best practice areas for solo attorneys?

So, you’ve decided to take your practice solo, congratulations! You’re taking the steps to tackle your legal career goals on your terms, and that’s something to be excited about. Before you get too ahead of yourself, have you considered what are the best practice areas for solo attorneys?

Whether you’re moving away from a law firm or starting out solo, there are several business decisions you must consider if you want to be successful. If you haven’t done so already, you’ll want to get a good grasp on the practice areas you will focus on. This will determine your services, marketing, and entire business model.

Motivation and values

A good starting point when deciding what areas your solo practice will specialize in is finding your ‘why.’ In fact, all attorneys (solo or firm-based) should understand their ‘why’ for going into the legal industry.

This is your main motivation for wanting to practice solo law and will be your driver towards a fulfilling career. Some attorneys look to practice solo because they have more control over their billable hours and greater earning potential. Other attorneys are passionate about a specific practice area and feel they can make a bigger impact on their own. Neither option is better than the other, but it’s important to understand your motivations and values behind your practice. You’ll find more fulfillment and come across more genuine.

Practice areas

Bankruptcy law

This area of law is perfect for solo attorneys who are good with numbers and financial literacy. Many of your clients will owe money to another entity and have declared bankruptcy. For this reason, you’ll need to be comfortable evaluating financial documents to best represent your client. Additionally, if you don’t love going to court, bankruptcy law is for you. Most cases are settled outside of the courtroom. 

Civil litigation law

Litigation attorneys or trial lawyers are people who are quickly adaptable and enjoy a busy environment. Civil litigation typically involves disputes between parties seeking monetary damages or judgement based on non-criminal accusations. Since civil litigation law is broad, It’s best for solo attorneys to specialize in specific areas, like family law or medical malpractice.

This area of law is best suited for solo attorneys who can handle being pulled in many directions while also maintaining organization. Civil litigation often involves working very closely with clients, being in court, and out-witting your opposing counsel.

Employment law

Employment attorneys spend most of their time assisting the employer-employee relationship. This involves reviewing employment contracts, discrimination suits, termination, lay-offs, settlements and more.

Employment law is a great area of practice for solo attorneys who enjoy advocating for the rights of their clients. To best represent your clients, you’ll need to stay up to date on employment and labor legislation and be ready to have difficult conversations. The employee-employer relationship can be sensitive and guiding a client through legal proceedings while also maintaining a sense of empathy can be difficult to manage.

Family law

Cases within family law are almost always sensitive, especially when child or separation of a household is at stake. Adding in these factors on top of upholding the law can create a stressful work environment for solo attorneys. On the other hand, family law can also be very rewarding when you are able to better your client’s lives.

Similar to employment law, solo attorneys practicing family law must be able maintain a level of empathy while also helping their clients make difficult legal decisions.

Real Estate law

Real estate attorneys assist their clients with legal property matters. This could include assisting a lender with the sale of property, drawing up contracts, titles, and litigation of tenant-landlord relationships.  This area of law is great for solo attorneys who have a knack for attention to detail. Depending on the client, real estate contracts can be long and must include specific language to protect the clients assets surrounding the property.

Solo attorneys who prefer transactional work are a great fit for real estate law. Once a contract is in place, the client will likely only contact you or need your services when there is a breach or conflict that arises.

Choose what’s best for you

At the end of the day, the practice area for solo attorneys comes down to what you want. Figuring out what you’re passionate about or what motivates you is a great first step in finding the best practice area. Next, evaluate your skill set and how you can separate yourself from the pool of solo attorneys.

Article by;

Kamron Sanders
PracticePanther

Irwin Mitchell Boosts Employment Team With Partner Hire

Law Firm Continues To Invest In Its Services For Senior Executives And Employees

National law firm Irwin Mitchell has boosted its London Employment and Professional Discipline team with the appointment of partner Danielle Parsons from Slater & Gordon.

Danielle is a leading lawyer representing senior executives and professionals in high value discrimination, whistleblowing and high court claims. She also advises on bonus disputes, severance packages and restrictive covenants.

Her clients come from a wide range of sectors including individuals working in financial services, healthcare and medical sectors, and creative industries, including TV and print media. She also acts for senior solicitors and barristers.

Shah Qureshi, Head of the Employment and Professional Discipline team in London at Irwin Mitchell, said:

Expert Opinion

“The past year has been a difficult time for many senior employees with the Covid pandemic creating a great deal of uncertainty. The need for expert employment law advice has never been greater.

“We are delighted that Danielle has joined us and her arrival is a welcome boost for the team. She is well-respected and will bring a high level of expertise for our clients. The number of enquiries we receive from senior professionals suffering discrimination and whistleblowers being victimised has grown exponentially since the start of the pandemic and Danielle’s arrival continues our plans to grow the team and meet that need.”
Shah Qureshi – Partner

Commenting on her arrival, Danielle said: “Irwin Mitchell’s national Employment team is one of the largest in the UK with one of the strongest reputations. I am delighted to join the firm’s London team which specialises in advising senior executives and professionals. I am looking forward to building on this and supporting the team’s continued growth.”

Fergal Dowling, partner and National Head of the Employment team, added: “Our team in London is one of the UK’s leading teams advising senior executives and professionals. Employment services have been in high demand amongst our existing clients and we have been appointed by some very high profile businesses and individuals during 2020. Our new business pipeline looks very strong and we are anticipating further growth over the next 12 months.

“Our success is based on us being one of the most innovative and best resourced employment teams in the UK. It is our vision to offer practical solutions for our clients as their needs and demands change and this has certainly been evident over the last year.

“Danielle joining our senior team is an important development for us in 2021 and I’m confident that her appointment will help us stay one step ahead.”

Gibson Dunn Wins Awards at 2021 Benchmark Litigation US Awards

Benchmark Litigation recognized Gibson Dunn at its 2021 Benchmark US awards ceremony with six awards. Gibson Dunn was named East Coast Appellate Firm of the Year, California Antitrust Firm of the Year and California Labor & Employment Firm of the Year.  Additionally, Los Angeles partner Theane Evangelis was named California Labor & Employment Litigator of the Year and Washington, D.C. partner Richard Parker was named East Coast Antitrust Litigator of the Year. Finally, Soundgarden et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc, in which Gibson Dunn represented UMG, was named an Impact Case. The publication noted, “The firm continues to enjoy a coveted position as one of the nation’s strongest and most in-demand litigation institutions.” The awards were presented on March 31, 2021.

Theane Evangelis serves as Co-Chair of the firm’s Class Actions Practice Group and as Vice Chair of the California Appellate Practice Group. She has played a lead role in a wide range of appellate, constitutional, media and entertainment, and crisis management matters, as well as a variety of employment, consumer and other class actions.

Richard Parker is a leading antitrust lawyer who has successfully represented clients before both enforcement agencies and the courts. As an experienced antitrust trial and regulatory lawyer, Richard has been involved in many major antitrust representations, including merger clearance cases, cartel matters, class actions, and government civil investigations.  He has extensive experience representing clients in matters before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)  and the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division.

Promotions at GESSEL

As 2021 gets underway, GESSEL is proud to announce the implementation of personnel changes at our firm. Three of our experienced colleagues have now become partners:

Michał Bochowicz, advocate, specialises in M&A, private equity and venture capital transactions in the tech, media and telecoms (TMT) and renewable energy sectors, and also in day-to-day business law advice. He was has worked, on the buyer as well as seller sides, on some of the biggest deals in the Polish tech sector. His Clients include Polish and international private equity and venture capital funds, payment processors, e-commerce entities, software suppliers (also in the SaaS model), and green energy firms. Michał also brings his talents to pro bono work, helping startups and young entrepreneurs with their first steps in business. He is lauded for his ability to understand the needs of his Clients and the specific traits of their operations as well as for his proactive, creative approach. In his new role at GESSEL, Michał will co-lead an interdisciplinary team focused on the new tech sector.

With GESSEL since 2015.

Adam Kraszewski, attorney, head of GESSEL’s employment law, life sciences and intellectual property practice. Often called upon to advise on projects which require not only legal knowledge, but also creativity and sensitivity. Adam has a long track record advising on employment law in its individual as well as collective variants; he has been instrumental in devising effective employment models and incentive schemes (also for senior management), drawing up internal regulations for employing establishments, and resolving disputes. His labour law expertise is often tapped by other departments within our firm, e.g. as regards the passing of employees to new employers in the context of M&A deals. Adam also advises on copyright, trademarks, and legally protected personal interests. Finally, he is an expert in pharmaceutical law, successfully navigating the legal path to inclusion of new drugs in national reimbursement schemes. He has published extensively on his area of expertise.

With GESSEL since 2006.

Karol Sokół, advocate, specialises in M&A transactions in the private and public markets, structuring of transactions, and on legal aspects of business financing, including credit facility agreements, private bond issues, and investment funds.Cooperates with Polish and international funds and banking houses and advises on all stages of complex deals (on the buyer and seller sides) on share deal and asset deal transactions and on corporate restructuring. Also advises Polish and international companies. Repeatedly demonstrated his talent for negotiating complex transaction elements on behalf of the seller as well as buyer sides and in preparing shareholder agreements. His restructuring projects included buying up of bank receivables and leveraged buy-outs as well as devising representations and warranties liability mechanisms – also ones relying on W&I insurance, a novelty in the Polish market. Recommended, among other rankings, in IFLR 1000.

With GESSEL since 2010.

Apart from that, four of our legal professionals will now be assuming the role of managing associate: Dr Joanna Kisielińska-Garncarek, attorney with the arbitration practice led by Dr Beata Gessel- Kalinowska vel Kalisz, Karolina Krzal-Kwiatkowska, advocate and Krzysztof Jasiński, attorney from the M&A team led by Marcin Macieszczak, and Marta Grabiec, advocate at the employment law, life sciences and intellectual property practice led by Adam Kraszewski.

Marta Grabiec, advocate, specializes in intellectual property law, new technologies law, combating unfair competition, media law, and protection of personal rights. Her experience comprises legal advice and negotiations with respect to copyright, trademarks, industrial designs, utility models, patents and combating unfair competition. Advises also in respect of media law, press law and protection of personal rights of natural and legal persons. Her Clients include entities from the biotech, TMT, e-commerce, media, entertainment, and fashion industries. At the procedural level, represents Clients before civil courts, criminal courts, administrative courts, arbitration tribunals and the Patent Office of the Republic of Poland. Supported Clients in cases concerning trademark registration and defamation in various media and publications.

With GESSEL since 2012.

Krzysztof Jasiński, attorney, specialises in M&A transactions, banking and finance, and company law. Advises private equity and venture capital funds, sectoral investors, and business founders, also contributes to due diligence studies. Before joining GESSEL, spent six years with a number of recognised law firms, working in the fields of business and companies law. Regularly publishes articles on business and civil law, among other periodicals in Przegląd Prawa Handlowego and Przegląd Sądowy.

With GESSEL since 2016.

Dr Joanna Kisielińska-Garncarek, attorney, specializes in litigation, arbitration. Her practice focuses on various disputes with business law aspects, including ones arising from M&A transactions and from construction and infrastructure projects. Represents Clients before the general courts and in arbitration proceedings (at, among other forums, the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, the International Arbitration Association, the Arbitration Court of the National Chamber of Commerce in Warsaw, and the Arbitration Court of Lewiatan Confederation, and also in ad hoc proceedings). Also serves as secretary to Polish and international arbitration tribunals. Successfully participated in international moots in the fields of human rights and commercial arbitration; more recently, she contributed to such events in the role of judge / arbitrator. Author of publications in the realms of arbitration, law of obligations, and comparative law.

With GESSEL since 2015.

Karolina Krzal-Kwiatkowska, advocate, specialises in competition law, M&A transactions in the private market, and company and business law. Advises on merger control, unfair competition, and collective consumer interests; represents Clients before the antitrust authorities. In her M&A work, advises private equity and venture capital houses, drafting and negotiating transaction documentation and managing due diligence projects. Her extensive experience with the legal aspects of business operations leaves her well placed to assist Clients with current issues (e.g. reviewing commercial contracts) as well as more unusual undertakings (e.g. restructuring and retrenchment). Contributed to a number of books of relevance to her fields of practice, speaker at conferences.

With GESSEL since 2011.

 

Legal aid as important for economy as hospitals and school

Increasing access to justice can be a ‘win-win’ for businesses, IBA-World Bank report claims

Improving legal aid services is as important for economic growth as providing functioning hospitals, schools and roads, the International Bar Association (IBA) and World Bank claim.

The jointly produced report, A Tool for Justice: A Cost Benefit Analysis of Legal Aid, looked at more than 50 cost and benefit studies of legal aid programmes and found that increased access to justice can be a “win-win” for businesses, the economy and society at large.

The report, launched this week at the IBA conference in Seoul, South Korea, argues that failing to provide adequate legal aid does not save money, but simply shifts the financial burden to other areas of government spending such as healthcare, housing, child protection and imprisonment.

For example, the report cites a study in Canada which estimated the costs of unequal access to justice on public spending in other areas (employment insurance, social assistance and healthcare) to be roughly 2.35 times more than the annual direct service expenditures on legal aid.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

“Unaddressed legal needs affect individuals, their families, the justice system, the economy and society as a whole,” commented Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, a member of the IBA Access to Justice and Legal Aid Committee. “As a profession we must continue to champion legal aid programmes and ensure that everyone has the opportunity to access justice.”

The report further claims that around 5.1 billion people — roughly two-thirds of the world’s population — lack “meaningful” access to justice, the result of which can lead to people becoming trapped in “vicious cycles of poverty, inequality and marginalisation”.

Georgia Harley, senior governance specialist at the World Bank, added: “Legal aid is undeniably good economics. Strengthening legal aid and related services increases access to justice and ensures that the rule of law is upheld. Most importantly, improving legal aid programmes saves government money and strengthens the economy in the long term.”

The report’s release follows the Labour Party’s pledge to provide free legal training for 200 lawyers specialising in areas such as benefits, debt, housing, employment and immigration.

By on
Emma Watson

Harry Potter star Emma Watson launches legal advice helpline

Free service includes guidance on NDAs and settlement agreements

A free helpline backed by British actor and activist Emma Watson will offer free legal advice to women in England and Wales who have experienced sexual harassment at work.

The expert guidance is supplied by legal charity Rights of Women, whose female volunteers and employment lawyers will offer callers guidance on what behaviour constitutes sexual harassment, how to bring a claim at an employment tribunal, as well advice on settlement and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

Kickstarted from donations from members of the public, including Watson, the specialist service enjoys backing from Time’s Up UK Justice and Equality Fund, and is managed by Rosa, the UK Fund for Women and Girls. It stands as the UK’s only free legal helpline for women facing sexual harassment in the workplace.

The new dedicated telephone line follows findings by the Trades Union Congress (TUC), a federation of trade unions in England and Wales, that as many as one in two women experienced sexual harassment at work.

“While sexual harassment is one of the most common forms of violence against women, it has remained a hidden issue with many women believing it was an inevitable part of their jobs or that it would jeopardise their careers to assert their legal rights,” explained Seyi Newell, a senior legal officer at Rights of Women.

By plugging the gap in workplace protection, it is hoped that women will be empowered to hold their harassers and employer to account. Harry Potter star Watson said:

Understanding what your rights are, how you can assert them, and the choices you have if you’ve experienced harassment, is such a vital part of creating safe workplaces for everyone, and this advice line is such a huge development in ensuring that all women are supported, wherever we work.

In the wake of the global #MeToo movement, which has seen women come forward with their stories of sexual harassment and sexual abuse, Watson regards this service as a step in the right direction. She continues:

“It finally feels like people are realising the scale of the problem, and I’m certainly hopeful that with global standards such as the recent International Labour Organisation treaty on harassment at work, we’ll start to see a new climate of prevention and accountability on this issue domestically.”

A rise in the number of sexual misconduct cases across the legal profession has resulted in an increased workload for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), according to a recent report.

The regulator has also recently faced mounting pressure from MPs to clampdown on the ‘cover-up culture’, which sees lawyers draft up questionable NDAs to prevent alleged victims of sexual assault or harassment from speaking out.

Merritt J. Green

Brief Survey of Non-Compete Law impacting East Coast States

There has been a recent trend of states moving to limit the application of restrictive covenants, especially post-employment non-compete agreements, on employees.  Within the past year, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire have all passed legislation restricting the enforceability of non-competition agreements against low-wage earning employees.  This is a growing national trend that all attorneys should monitor.  

Provided below is a brief survey of states with laws restricting non-compete agreements and general guidelines for other East Coast states.    

Connecticut:   No state legislation restricting non-compete agreements.  Case law holds that a covenant must be reasonable as relevant to time period, geographic scope, ability of employee to earn livelihood, protection to employer, and public interest.

Delaware:  No state legislation.  Case law holds that a covenant must be reasonable to be enforceable balancing legitimate interests of employer, ability of employee to earn livelihood, and public’s interest.

Florida:  Florida statute 542.335 requires that non-compete agreements be reasonable and necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the employer.  Case law applies balancing test.

Georgia:  Georgia Code 13-8-53 provides, in relevant part, that post-employment contracts that restrict competition shall not be permitted against any employee who does not, in the course of his or her employment:  

(1) Customarily and regularly solicit for the employer customers or prospective customers;  (2) Customarily and regularly engage in making sales or obtaining orders or contracts for products or services to be performed by others; (3) Perform the following duties: (A) Have a primary duty of managing the enterprise in which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof; (B) Customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more other employees;  and (C) Have the authority to hire or fire other employees or have particular weight given to suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion, or any other change of status of other employees;  or (4) Perform the duties of a key employee or of a professional.

Maryland:  On May 25, 2019, Maryland enacted SB 328, which prohibits employers from entering into non-competition agreements with employees who earn equal to or less than $15 an hour or $31,200 annually. Under this new law, for employees earning wages at or below this threshold, non-compete agreements that “restrict[] the ability of an employee to enter into employment with a new employer or to become self-employed in the same or similar business or trade shall be null and void as being against the public policy of the State.”  The law becomes effective October 1, 2019.

Maine:  As of September 18, 2019, Maine employers are prohibited from having non-compete restrictions for any employee earning at or below 300% of the federal poverty level.  Furthermore, for all employees, no non-compete can take effect before the employee has worked at least one year, or six months after signing (whichever is later). And, employee must be provided three (3) days to consider before signing non-compete.

Massachusetts:  Effective October 1, 2018, Massachusetts banned non-compete restrictions for anyone classified as a non-exempt employee.  To be enforceable, a non-compete agreement must also, be in writing, be signed by both employer and employee, must advise employee of right to seek legal counsel before signing, and must be provided to employee with employment offer or ten (10) business days before the state of employment, whichever is earlier.  A “noncompetition agreement” is defined as “an agreement between an employer and an employee, . . . under which the employee or expected employee agrees that he or she will not engage in certain specified activities competitive with his or her employer after the employment relationship has ended.”  

New Jersey:  The New Jersey legislature has considered bills to restrict employer use of non-compete agreements, but nothing has passed yet.  Courts will enforce non-compete agreements that are reasonable in scope and duration.

New Hampshire:  passed legislation outlawing non-competes for “low wage” workers, defined as hourly rate that is less than or equal to 200% of federal minimum wage ($14.50 per hour).  This law takes effect in September 8, 2019. A “noncompete agreement” is defined as “an agreement between an employer and a low wage employee that restricts such low wage employee from performing:  (1) work for another employer for a specified period of time; (2) work in a specified geographic area; or (3) work for another employer that is similar to such low wage employee’s work for the employer who is party to the agreement.”

New York:  No laws prohibiting non-compete agreements.  A non-compete is only allowed and enforceable to the extent it (1) is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, (2) does not impose an undue hardship on the employee, (3) does not harm the public, and (4) is reasonable in time period and geographic scope.

North Carolina:  Courts will enforce non-compete agreements if supported by consideration, reasonable about time and territory, and designed to protect legitimate business interest.

Pennsylvania:  No legislation controlling.  Will be enforced if supported by consideration and reasonable to rights of employer, employee and public interest.

Rhode Island:  The Rhode Island legislature passed noncompete law on July 11, 2019 (it is not effective yet, still waiting on governor’s signature).  The law will prohibit non-compete agreements with low-wage employees with average annual earnings of less than 250% of the federal poverty level.

South Carolina:  Non-compete agreements will be enforceable if supported by consideration and are reasonable in not over-reaching employer’s legitimate business interests nor overly burdening employee’s ability to earn a livelihood.

Vermont:  No legislation restricting non-compete agreements.  Will be enforced if reasonable.

Virginia:  Non-compete agreements will be enforceable if supported by consideration and are reasonable in not over-reaching employer’s legitimate business interests nor overly burdening employee’s ability to earn a livelihood.

Conclusion:  Post-employment non-compete agreements are either being outlaws or facing greater judicial scrutiny.  Employers should utilize them sparingly. However, employers still can protect confidential information and client relationships.  Accordingly, attorneys should focus clients on Confidentiality Agreements, trade secret protection, and non-solicitation restrictions (both protecting employees and clients).

Most importantly, whenever considering any post-employment restriction, to be enforceable, it should narrowly define the post-employment restriction to protect the legitimate interests of the employer, in relationship to the services the employee provided the employer during employment, and his or her post employment opportunities.

Merritt Green, General Counsel, P.C.  mgreen@gcpc.com –703-556-0411