The Lawyer Asia Pacific 150 is the only research report to provide a ranking of the top 100 independent local firms and top 50 global firms in the region. The report offers critical review of some of the fastest growing firms and their strategies, a country-by-country guide to leading legal advisers and legal services market trends, plus exclusive insight into the current business development opportunities in the Asia Pacific. Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
It may be helpful to your readers to add a comment to the article on "Ruling Backs Restrictive Covenants" in The Lawyer, 23 September.
Otherwise, they could be left with the mistaken impression that any three-year restrictive covenant on a professional person is enforceable as a result of the decision in Taylor Stuart & Co v Croft. I should perhaps add that my firm was not involved in this case.
I do not regard this case as authority for supporting the proposition that a three-year non-solicitation clause, whether it be of all clients or just those the employee dealt with, would normally be enforceable in an employment contract.
In a much larger organisation, such a restriction would, in all probability, have been unenforceable regardless of its period - see, for example, Marley Tile Co v Johnson 1982 IRLR 75. In any event, does an employer really need three years to secure the goodwill of clients?
The argument for such a restriction is stronger where the contact is on an annual basis, for example, where there is an annual audit, but to suggest that this is a universal requirement is stretching a point.