Once the member has left the LLP, these agreements are intended to prevent them from soliciting the company or LLP customers and soliciting employees, advisors or members of the LLP. In order for potential restrictive agreements to apply to a former partner, the company must demonstrate that the impacts of the LLP agreement are limited so that they are no longer proportionate and necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the company. If alliances are too broad, they may be unenforceable. The basic principle is that restrictive alliances for public policy reasons are abbreviated because they restrict trade, but the law will allow them to do so, provided that: in certain disciplines, such as banking, insurance and construction, law firm panels are generally quite narrow, but take into account the size of some of these areas; If the company you join has the advantage of being on your client`s panel, even if it is not necessarily dependent on the same level or even for the same type of work, you will find a mutual panel spot useful in the reasoning for the non-application of your alliances and your faster release. It`s also important to appreciate a customer`s ability to teach the panel off – it`s an important factor and something you need to explore. Remember – it is rare that there is no type of agreement that can be obtained in such cases. The scope of your restrictions should be aligned with the size and nature of your business. If you are a relatively large company with multiple offices on many sites/jurisdictions, agreements that prevent a partner from applying or doing with a client or employee of the company may be considered inappropriate. A similar restriction for a small office business would be more likely to be imposed. Click here for our news warning on Clare Murray`s LLP-Restrictive Alliances.
There is also a growing concern of “non-market” agreements that prevent a partner from acting for a customer (even if the customer is coming to them) or from employing or other partners (whether the employees involved or other partners have been encouraged to leave the company). Click on the following links for more information on advice to partners and businesses in the event of restrictive agreements. If you are in a position where a move as a partner is something you are considering, you need to consider restrictive alliances and their applicability in order to assess your ability to move with a client who follows (and perhaps a team) and that takes into account the timeline and ease with which you can facilitate this. Partners are sometimes surprised that their alliances actually have a combative chance of being imposed, although the first appearance seems too hard. While they are of concern and you should consider them, you should consider that, in practice, an agreement can be reached in most cases. There are few things you need to do/consider to put yourself in the best position from which you can negotiate. While this is generally the accepted position for employees, the courts have developed a different approach for a company`s equity partners, the main case being the decision of the Private Council of Bridge v Deacons  AC 705. Deacons was a Hong Kong law firm, and Mr.
Bridge was an equity partner and director of the IP and Brand Department, which handled approximately 10% of the firm`s clients and generated approximately 4.5% of its revenue. He had no relationship with and has had little contact with customers of the company`s other services. The partnership agreement contained a restrictive contract that prevented Mr. Bridge from being a lawyer in Hong Kong for five years after leaving Deacons for a client of the company or someone who had been the firm`s client for the three years prior to his departure – even if he did not do so when he wanted to work in his own home or for the government.