Every employee departure is a question of balance: a company's interest in protecting confidential information and relationships against an individual's right to earn a living. We sit on both sides of that line, drafting and defending non-competes, advising on departures and competitive hiring, and managing the risk that comes with bringing on talent from a rival. State law here is anything but uniform, and that variation drives the strategy.
Drafting Non-Compete Agreements
We draft non-compete agreements scoped to be enforceable, narrow in duration, geography, and activity, because overreaching restrictions are exactly what courts strike down. On the other side, we defend employees and their new employers against covenants that go too far, and we account for the wide swing in state law, from states that enforce reasonable restrictions to those that ban non-competes outright, when assessing risk and building a position.
Non-Solicitation Provisions That Hold
Non-solicitation clauses often do the protective work a non-compete cannot. We structure provisions restricting solicitation of customers, employees, or both, calibrated to protect genuine relationships without locking anyone out of the market. Because these are frequently more enforceable than outright non-competes, they can be the better tool, and we draft and contest them with the same attention to the state-specific standards that decide whether they survive.
Garden Leave Arrangements
Garden leave keeps a departing employee on payroll through a notice period while removing them from sensitive work, buying the company time to secure relationships and information before that person joins a competitor. We advise on when garden leave is the right mechanism, how to structure the notice period and obligations, and how it interacts with restrictive covenants and, in some jurisdictions, the enforceability of those covenants.
Inevitable Disclosure Claims
Some states allow a company to argue that an employee will inevitably disclose trade secrets in a new role even without proof of actual misuse, while others reject the theory entirely. We pursue inevitable disclosure claims where the law and facts support stopping a high-risk move, and we defend employees against them when they are being used to enforce a non-compete the company never had, framing the argument around the real overlap in duties.