So much had happened to Sammy. Years before, he had quickly passed the CPA exam. While he was one of the fastest risers ever at ZW& Co, he had been asked by his buddies Randy and Paul to go in with them in their own new firm. Randy and Paul had convinced some clients that they would get a better deal with them, and besides, the clients had dealt with them all along, anyway. Sammy had been concerned about the no compete clause they had signed when they first signed up at ZW & Co., and Paul had tried to convince Sammy that there was no trouble. Paul's brother over at Sooem & Tortz, Attorneys at Law, had assured him that it probably was unenforceable, although the case he was relying on was from out of state and dealt with a much longer no compete period (3 years instead of one year). Randy and Paul went on, taking some clients with them, later facing the wrath of the ZW & Co. in the courtroom. Didn't help that Paul (but unknown to Randy) had copied client files. One bullet missed.
- What issues are involved with Randy and Paul from both the no-compete and the state board rules point of view, if any?
Recently Asked Questions
- Please refer to the attachment to answer this question. This question was created from Take Test: E2 – 16 SUMMER ARCH 249 700: Survey World ....
- Please refer to the attachment to answer this question. This question was created from exam_4.
- Please explain why the comparative approach is useful in the study of social problems. In your explanation please discuss how this approach may be useful