Practice News

Suppose your client walks into your office and explains that he has been sued by his former employer for violation of a noncompete clause in his employment contract. Your client signed the noncompete a week after starting his employment and then worked for the employer for 23 months. Is the noncompete supported by adequate consideration? The answer could depend on the judge and court hearing the case.

A postemployment restrictive covenant must be supported by adequate consideration—generally characterized as “employment for a substantial period of time.” But what is a “substantial period of time”? May other forms of consideration be substituted? Does it matter if an employee quits or is terminated with or without cause? Illinois appellate courts have been unable to clearly answer these questions.

Asked and Answered 

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. I am the managing partner of a 12-attorney family law firm in Kansas City, Mo. We have been in practice for about 30 years. During the last 10 years we have shifted more of our advertising from print directories and advertising to the internet. Today virtually all of our work comes from the internet. While to some extent this has been a blessing, it has also been a curse as we must continue to make investments in search engine optimization, update the website, and pay to be included in online directories. It is a vicious circle and we are losing business to new attorneys who are just starting out, creating first-class websites, and making online investments.  I would appreciate your thoughts.

The United States Trustee Program is accepting applications for an Assistant United States Trustee position.

Internal candidates who wish to be considered must have at least five years post-J.D. professional legal experience in interpreting, applying, and advocating on behalf of clients the provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and related laws, rules, and regulations that arise in bankruptcy cases.

Appellate and trial courts are issuing inconsistent decisions concerning proper standing and jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The uncertainty created by these decisions means judges and attorneys must juggle many variables when considering choice of venue in Illinois and other states. The difference is in how each court defines concrete injury and whether the threat of future harm is sufficiently concrete. An illustration of these inconsistencies is in cases brought by consumers affected by data breaches. In those cases, consumers’ personal information became exposed to parties not authorized to see or possess it. Claims based on data breaches typically include, if not solely rely on, allegations that consumers were injured because the mere exposure of their personal information created a threat of future harm. Read Mark Bernstein’s article, “Standing Here or There?,” in October’s Illinois Bar Journal for a detailed analysis of venue and jurisdiction implications when trying or defending cases involving concrete-injury and future-harm claims.