Law_School_and_Plagiarism

C 902 sw2d 739 744 tex greater than the public

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: blic interest in unfettered competition among attorneys is no Griffis, P.C., 902 S.W.2d 739, 744 (Tex. greater than the public interest in App. 1995) (internal citations omitted). As unfettered competition in many professions. The public interest in such, disincentives, whether direct or freedom to choose one’s attorney, indirect, may ultimately interfere with the for [*175 example], is surely no public’s right to choose because attorneys more significant than the public could be required to give up certain clients. interest in choosing one’s doctor. Attorneys’ covenants not to compete Correct_____ Incorrect_____ are no more injurious to the public than those between other professionals. Therefore, courts should abandon the per se rule which applies solely to attorneys’ covenants not to compete in favor of the reasonableness rule applicable to all other professions. ¶4 This reasoning, however, is open to attack. Doctors, accountants, and other professionals routinely enter into nonKirstan Penasack, Student Author, competition agreements, and the courts just Abandoning the Per Se Rule Against as routinely hold them enforceable if they Law Firm Agreements Anticipating Competition: Comment on Haight, are “reasonable.” The public interest in Brown & Bonesteel v. Superior Court choosing one’s doctor is as important as the of Los Angeles County, 5 Geo. J. public interest in choosing one’s attorney. Leg. Ethics 889, 892 (1992). Correct_____ Incorrect_____ *892 Agreements anticipating competition would serve to ameliorate the effects of grabbing, except that courts routinely invalidate these agreements between lawyers. Why? The courts rely heavily on decisions of the profession’s own bar ethics committees, which invalidate these agreements as violations of selfpromulgated ethical standards. The crux of the problem is the profession’s powerful, yet little known, [FN14] per se ban on restrictive covenants of any form. The per se ban originated within the American Bar Association in 1961, was subsequently adopted in both the Model Code and the...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 01/15/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online