The Lawyer Global Litigation Top 50 report is the only ranking of international law firms by litigation and arbitration revenue and is essential reading for anyone seeking to benchmark their litigation and dispute resolution practices...
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.