[QUOTE=Inigo Montoya]
Y’all are pissing upstream with regard to Fear. He’s like lightning on the savannah–you never know where he’ll strike, but you can bet there will be trouble.
[/QUOTE]
<blush>
Can I use this in my sig?
No. It isn’t. When he was first challenged on it, he restated it as his opinion, with no facts or law to back it up. You may want to re-read the thread.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
After all that, it turns out I was right after all
[/QUOTE]
I would not call “You have the right to accept any job, anywhere, any time” right. The general rule, as far I cared to research in NY appears adequately summed up here: “It is well established that restrictive covenants that tend to prevent an employee from pursuing a similar vocation upon termination or retirement from employment are disfavored by the law … Such covenants will not be enforced unless necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential customer lists or good will, or to prevent special harm to which the former employer might be exposed because of the unique nature of the employee’s services.” (Briskin v. All Seasons Services, Inc., 615 N.Y.S.2d 166).
As far as the value of your answer, it completely ignored (i) the application of the facts to the above rule; (ii) the possibility that the client may have entered into a nonsolicitation agreement in connection with the engagement; or (iii) the possibility that the client may be unwilling to hire someone who is subject to a noncompete for fear of tortious interference with contract. But, as others have mentioned, you get what you pay for.
For what it’s worth if anything, I am a corporate lawyer in New York. Not yours, not Nutty’s, and the other usual disclaimers.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
<blush>
Can I use this in my sig?
[/QUOTE]
Only if you list me as a named additional insured on a very large personal liability insurance policy and pay the appropriate royalties to the original creator of the phrase.
[QUOTE=Inigo Montoya]
Only if you list me as a named additional insured on a very large personal liability insurance policy and pay the appropriate royalties to the original creator of the phrase.
[/QUOTE]
<looks snake-eyed at Inigo>
Are you another attorney?
Worse…an insurance guy.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
Gee, BUBBA, I’d think you could see that telling you not to take bad legal advice is not the same as giving you good legal advice myself.
[/Quote]
And I’d think that you could tell the difference between opinions on a message board and legally binding advice. Are you capable of giving good legal advice? Why would anyone expect legal advice from a general topic message board? You pretty much spanked Fear Itself in the original thread and I agreed with you till you brought your drama queen rant to the pit. Is this rant really about Fear Itself being the usual tool or are you just giving yourself an “I’m a hotshot lawyer” ego party?
This would be a great line in a legal contract
All the lawyers I know are too clever to stoop to the obvious “Bubba” joke. Can’t wait to get home and share it with my dog, Bubba.
[QUOTE= From Fear Itself’s Cite]
It is true that whether you can successfully challenge a non-compete to a degree depends on the wording of the agreement, but my experience is that the wording of the agreement is not usually the critical issue. The more important issues seem to be the nature of the employer’s business and the nature of the employees’ jobs.
The nature of the geographic and product market that the employer serves might also be relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Fear Itself, looking at the website that you cited, the answer is not "“You have the right to accept any job, anywhere, any time.” The above tells me that while more often than not, the court will not enforce non-competes, they will enforce them in certain situations, especially when the non-compete is reasonable. This discussion was moot in Nutty Bunny’s case since she didn’t sign a non-compete.
If you notice, the commentary written by those attorneys contains nuances. The website states that the courts in New York tend to disfavor non-competes.
[QUOTE= From Fear Itself’s Cit]
I still tell employees that signing an employment agreement is like buying a lawsuit. You’ll probably win the lawsuit, but it will still cost you.
[/QUOTE]
This is another relevant point to consider. Even if you will, you are still out a good sum of cash, and legal fees are not cheap.
Fear ItselflWhat you seem to be forgetting is that bad advice is worse than no advice, and the advice that you gave was bad. Suppose that Nutty Bunny was a key employee and had signed an employment contract that contained a reasonable non-compete clause. Suppose she decides to take a job with Competitor company who has hired her for her knowledge of the industry and her many client contacts. Would your answer still be true? Would you still have said "You have the right to accept any job, anywhere, any time. "?
[QUOTE=Inigo Montoya]
Worse…an insurance guy.
[/QUOTE]
:smack:
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I’ve got news for you Counselor; everything you have ever told a client “might” be complete shit. Unless you have never lost a case; you have lost a case, haven’t you? Was your legal advice “complete shit” because the judge didn’t agree with you? Perhaps all attorneys should throw out their shingles if they lose a single case, because that proves that at least once, they were wrong. We can’t risk that, can we?
[/QUOTE]
No, but a good attorney will not tell the client that they have a slam dunk case. You may tell a client that their case could go either way. You may tell a client that a jury may not believe them. Often times, these disputes boil down to which side does the jury believe and often times, it boils down to what does the judge feel like doing. I don’t know Jodi, or what kind of law she practices, but I suspect that she informs her clients of the risks before proceeding down a particular course of action.
No it wouldn’t be true. We know that and watching Fear Itself dance around the subject isn’t anything new.
But how about some common sense. If you signed a non-compete contract wouldn’t you be aware of that? If you had employees working for you and you hired them out to others wouldn’t you want to make sure that they understood the non-compete issue? So, what do you think the chances are of Nutty Bunny being under the obligation of a non compete contract and -
a. not recalling that issue
b. having an employer who didn’t stress it to the employee.
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
Suppose that Nutty Bunny was a key employee and had signed an employment contract that contained a reasonable non-compete clause. Suppose she decides to take a job with Competitor company who has hired her for her knowledge of the industry and her many client contacts. Would your answer still be true?
[/QUOTE]
Go back an read her OP again. Her employer loaned her out to do bookkeeping. I don’t think I was skating too close to the edge to rule out that she was a “key employee”. Call it a hunch. I know lawyers can’t act on hunches, but I can, and I was right. That is the difference between the courtroom and a freakin’ internet messageboard.
The SDMB Bar Association really needs to stop taking themselves so fucking seriously. It’s not like you are practicing medicine or something.
So the defenses to Fear’s actions seem to be variants of:
(a) it doesn’t matter that he was wrong; it’s only a message board;
(b) he has an honest belief that he’s right, and that’s enough;
© he was in fact actually right.
Have I missed any others?
I think these can quickly be disposed of – not that it will matter much to those who aren’t interested in factual accuracy anyway, I suppose.
(a) The Purpose of GQ is to provide factual answers to questions. There are times when this goal is in tension with the inability of lawyers to provide legal advice in a message-board setting for a non-client. Often, legal issues may be discussed and factual answers given in the abstract, or in the hypothetical. If GQ is to mean anything as a forum, though, it must be resistant to the attitude of, “It doesn’t matter - it’s only a message board.” Yes, it is a message board – one dedicated to providing more fact in the world, not less, and it’s a specific forum on that message board explicitly restricted to factual answers to questions.
(b) It’s not enough
© He was not
I’ve already (briefly) commented on the general worthlessness of what Fear said in the GQ thread, so I won’t restate that here.
I will say this: WTG on an excellent and well-deserved pitting, Jodi.
It’d be great if those of us who actually know something about legal topics could devote more of our limited SDMB time actually providing useful information (as opposed to debunking bad information posted by idiots.)
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Go back an read her OP again. Her employer loaned her out to do bookkeeping. I don’t think I was skating too close to the edge to rule out that she was a “key employee”. Call it a hunch. I know lawyers can’t act on hunches, but I can, and I was right. That is the difference between the courtroom and a freakin’ internet messageboard.
The SDMB Bar Association really needs to stop taking themselves so fucking seriously. It’s not like you are practicing medicine or something.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if your answer had started with, “I have a hunch that …” then you would not be getting this richly-deserved raft of shit right now. You’re entitled to a hunch. You’re not entitled to announce your hunch as incontrovertible fact.
A suggestion for you BubbaDog: Go to law school, pass the bar, and practice law for a few years. Do it with the integrity and enthusiasm of someone with a passion for his vocation. Then examine yourself and see if you have a real high tolerance for (a) lawyer jokes, and (b) dismissive comments that denigrate your profession and those who practice it.
Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not Jodi’s lawyer. I am not a lawyer at all, or even a college graduate, for that matter; and I’m certainly not licensed to practice malpractice liability law in your jurisdicton. This is not legal advice.
A suggestion for you BubbaDog: Go to law school, pass the bar, and practice law for a few years. Do it with the integrity and enthusiasm of someone with a passion for his vocation. Then examine yourself and see if you have a real high tolerance for (a) lawyer jokes, and (b) dismissive comments that denigrate your profession and those who practice it.
Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer. I am not Jodi’s lawyer. I am not a lawyer at all, or even a college graduate, for that matter; and I’m certainly not licensed to practice malpractice liability law in your jurisdicton. This is not legal advice.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Go back an read her OP again. Her employer loaned her out to do bookkeeping. I don’t think I was skating too close to the edge to rule out that she was a “key employee”. Call it a hunch. I know lawyers can’t act on hunches, but I can, and I was right. That is the difference between the courtroom and a freakin’ internet messageboard.
The SDMB Bar Association really needs to stop taking themselves so fucking seriously. It’s not like you are practicing medicine or something.
[/QUOTE]
I was reacting to the statement “You have the right to accept any job, anywhere, any time.” and “In most states, these kinds of employment policies or contracts are held to unenforceable in a court of law.” The OP didn’t state what her job title was. Maybe she was a CPA with industry contacts, the OP didn’t specify either way. I know at least one state that will enforce a non-compete clause.
[QUOTE=BubbaDog]
But how about some common sense. If you signed a non-compete contract wouldn’t you be aware of that? If you had employees working for you and you hired them out to others wouldn’t you want to make sure that they understood the non-compete issue? So, what do you think the chances are of Nutty Bunny being under the obligation of a non compete contract and -
[/QUOTE]
I’m not speaking about Nutty Bunny, but you would be amazed at the number of people who sign things and don’t read them. Or worse, don’t recall signing things.
Client- Yeah, I signed that contract, so what.
Attorney- Did you see where if you lose, you are liable for attorney’s fees? Or where the proper venue for any dispute is Wisconsin?
Client- No. So what. that’s not fair.
Attorney :smack:
[QUOTE=Caffeine.addict]
you would be amazed at the number of people who sign things and don’t read them.
[/QUOTE]
Especially in an employment setting. “I need a copy of your license, social security card and you need to sign this standard employor protection agreement.”
“Great, when do I start?”
[QUOTE=Long Time Lurker]
employor protection agreement
[/QUOTE]
Of course I was quoting my employer. I would never have made that typo.