Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 NOVEMBER 2009

"Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP": One Year Later

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

On August 7, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in “Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP”, unanimously holding that Business & Professions Code section 16600 invalidated a provision in Edwards’s employment agreement that restricted him from serving customers and competing with Arthur Andersen following the termination of his employment.

United StatesEmployment and HR

On August 7, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, unanimously holding that Business & Professions Code section 16600 invalidated a provision in Edwards's employment agreement that restricted him from serving customers and competing with Arthur Andersen following the termination of his employment.1  The Supreme Court rejected the "narrow restraint" exception2 that the Ninth Circuit and federal courts had previously embraced, and instead held that a provision prohibiting solicitation of customers that even "partially" or "narrowly" restricts an employee's ability to practice the employee's trade or profession is prohibited.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from