Is It Time To Hire a Criminal Defense Lawyer?

VIDEO: Houston Employment Attorney Joe Ahmad discusses when to call in legal backup.

The intriguing and continuously unfolding Wal-Mart Mexican bribery story brings up an issue of great importance to executives these days: when it is time to find yourself a good criminal defense lawyer?

After all, with Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, among others, the opportunities for executives to run afoul of the law seem to be multiplying. And with the increased globalization of almost every industry, the chances of breaking an American law just by following another country’s business customs is quite high.

In many parts of the world, bribery isn’t just commonplace. It’s expected and nearly impossible to do business without. In the Middle East and South Asia, it’s known as baksheesh, and in Mexico it’s mordida. But whatever it’s called by the locals, it boils down to bribery.

(The horror expressed by Mexican officials that Wal-Mart may have bribed local officials reminds me of Captain Renault in “Casablanca,” who claimed to be “Shocked, shocked!” that there was gambling at Rick’s, just as he was being handed his evening’s winnings.)

Some executives don’t want to hire a criminal defense lawyer because they fear it could be seen as an admission of guilt. But if an executive is facing even the hint of a criminal investigation, not hiring a criminal defense lawyer is the definition of foolishness.

How do you know who to hire? The best way to find an excellent criminal defense lawyer is by referral from your general lawyer. Every executive should have a civil attorney with whom they have a regular relationship, and that lawyer should be an acknowledged expert in his or her field, whether it’s labor and employment, executive compensation, or another practice area. That lawyer will, almost by definition, know the top lawyers in other fields and know who would be the best person to call in the matter the executive is facing. And just as important, that lawyer will know when it’s time to call a criminal defense lawyer. So if you even get a whiff of a criminal investigation–or the potential of a criminal investigation–call your “general” lawyer. He or she should know whether you need to “lawyer up” and, if so, who to call.

Your company has a stable of lawyers. Can’t you just use that person? Definitely not. The lawyers your company have, whether they’re outside counsel or in-house, are ethically bound to your employer, and your interests and your employer’s are not always aligned. It’s not unheard-of for a company to toss its founder if that person is implicated in criminal acts. That may or may not be in Rupert Murdoch’s future, depending on how the Leveson Hearings go.

Other than the money spent on having one’s own attorney, there’s no downside to it and lots of upside. Most importantly, everything said to one’s own attorney is privileged and can’t be shared with the company. There are plenty of reasons an executive may want to maintain attorney-client privilege, so that point can’t be overstated.

The laws governing corporations and their executives today are multiple and increasingly complex. And while some of these laws are intuitive and would require some criminal intent to violate, not all fit that definition. Even well-meaning executives who don’t have a consciously criminal bone in their bodies could find themselves targets of a criminal investigation.

Having the wisdom to hire a criminal defense lawyer early in the process can mean the difference between a long, fruitful career and a ruined reputation, or much worse.

Posted in CEOs, Complaints Against Executives, Criminal Prosecutions, Dodd-Frank, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Litigation, Sarbanes-Oxley | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Executives Who Resort to Fear, Intimidation Can Lose Support at All Levels

Watching the news, it’s hard not to notice a lot of executives losing the support of their companies’ boards of directors. The travails of recently resigned Best Buy CEO Brian Dunn come to mind, but there are others. What usually precedes that loss of board support, however, is a loss of confidence of the employees who report to them.

Clearly, there is more than one way to lead a company successfully. However, one way that I haven’t seen work is a dictatorial management style. Successful executives are able to rally support around difficult decisions and motivate employees without resorting to intimidation.

Granted, it can be tempting to adopt a dictatorial style. You want to get things done, and you want your people to act quickly. And managing by fear and intimidation is one way to get them to act. In fact, it’s not unheard of for an executive, frustrated by an unresponsive or unsuccessful team, to fire the most visible member of that team. That person may or may not have been responsible for the team’s failure, but their firing is meant to be a warning to those under him: find a way to be successful or start finding somewhere else to work. 

But motivation by fear alone rarely works in the long run. And when I see people wear out their welcome, it’s often because employees have lost confidence in an executive who has led by intimidation.

Don’t get me wrong: an executive has to let go of employees who aren’t pulling their weight or are detrimental to the company. Employees expect that, and understand that it is done to benefit the company (and other employees). 

But employees aren’t stupid. They know when employees are disciplined or terminated to send a message, and when decisions are made for the long term benefit of the company.  

Executives shouldn’t assume they can treat subordinates badly and not expect word of that to filter up to the executive’s superiors.”

Board members and key shareholders respect and appreciate the executive who can make the tough decisions companies have to make without losing the support of the employees below them.

Nobody likes a phony, and there are few things more phony than a person who is respectful of people who “matter,” but dismissive of anyone who (in the executive’s eyes) doesn’t.

 Simply put, executives can’t use fear as a substitute for respect. Respect leads to trust, and the lack of either can ultimately lead to an executive’s decline. So while effective management often requires making hard, even unpopular decisions, making them for the wrong reason is transparent and damaging. 

It doesn’t need to be that way, though. An executive can first build a foundation of trust and mutual respect. Coalition-building, compromise, a vision for the future, and the leadership abilities to bring wildly disparate parties together can help the executive be trusted as operating in the company’s best interest (rather than just their own).

And that kind of support and confidence—at all levels—is crucial when it’s time to make and implement tough decisions.

Posted in CEOs, Executive Management Style | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Negotiating Executive Compensation in an ‘Occupy’ Era

Texas executive employment attorney Joe Ahmad says the Occupy Movement might impact how executives are paid

VIDEO: Texas executive employment attorney Joe Ahmad says executives would be wise to tie portions of their compensation to company performance.

 To follow the news, it’s tempting to think that a good chunk of the country’s financial woes can be blamed on high executive compensation.  

The latest incarnation of that resentment is the Occupy movement, as well as the “say-on-pay” provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. But public anger over the compensation of those at the top of the economic ladder is nothing new. Just ask Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas II. In fact, there are probably cave drawings on the topic.  

Perhaps the difference now is that it affects a broader group of executives, not just the ones making seven (or eight) figures a year. And it just doesn’t affect the “bad boys,” the ones making large sums of money without providing any benefit to the company. 

According to a March 26 article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), CEO pay increases have slowed dramatically recently. The Journal’s study of compensation for 65 CEOs found that, despite fairly significant gains in their companies’ profit and revenue, the CEO’s total direct compensation rose just 1.4 percent in 2011, as opposed to rising 11 percent in 2010. The study included salary, all bonuses, and the value of stock and stock-option grants at the time of the grant.  So now in addition to legal restrictions designed to protect against the worst practices, such as providing obscenely large bonuses based upon profits realized from mark-to-market accounting that never actually materialize, we now see that boards of directors overall are limiting executive compensation.

Given this backdrop, executives who are in the midst of negotiating their own compensation packages should be mindful of the public’s concern. That shouldn’t, however, prevent them from seeking pay that fairly and competitively compensates them for their contributions to their company’s success.

In the past (defined broadly as “Pre-Enron”), boards of directors didn’t scrutinize executive compensation as much as they do today. For better or worse, many executives got a pass when it came to justifying their generous compensation. Nowadays, however, executive compensation is increasingly tied to executive success, as measured by metrics such as stock price, gross sales, net revenues, market growth, and customer loyalty.

It’s wise, then, for executives to seek at least a portion of their pay in instruments aligned with shareholder interests, like stock and stock options. That way, when shareholders do well, executives do well, and there may be fewer complaints.   

It’s also wise to bring in an independent executive compensation consultant, who can provide independent opinion justifying the requested compensation and provide the back-up documentation to show that the compensation is in line with other executives in a similar position, and that it’s related to company performance and shareholder value.

Having such a third party on hand can go a long way toward addressing concerns that compensation decisions aren’t just being made between the executive and the executive committee of the board of directors—a relationship that many consider to be too cozy.

You should consider suggesting or agreeing to protections for the company such as covenants not to compete (as long as the duration is not long and the scope of activity restrained is not onerous), nonsolicitation agreements,  and confidentiality agreements. It shows that loyalty is a two-way street.

Another tip: it helps if the people around you are strong advocates and supporters of yours. And that’s more likely to happen if they are also compensated fairly. So, if you have a say in their compensation (and chances are, you do), make sure they are as fairly and competitively compensated as you yourself would like to be. If your colleagues and subordinates are bitter about their compensation, that can reflect negatively on you and your compensation. If, on the other hand, you have the support of your team, that can only help you during compensation negotiations.

Finally, it’s worthwhile to have an attorney review any executive compensation package. An executive may look at a pay package and think it provides certain benefits, but from a legal perspective it may be interpreted differently. It’s always helpful to have a lawyer weigh in on all the possible loopholes.

To be sure, executive compensation is controversial these days. And it’s doubtful that public scrutiny will abate anytime soon.  That can be good thing in preventing some of the wrongdoings that have happened in the past.  

But it also means more thought and preparation has to go into presenting your case for compensation. In summary, make sure that 1) you seek compensation that’s allied with the interest of shareholders, 2) your board is provided the ammunition it needs to justify your compensation, and 3) you present to the company protections – in form of covenants not to compete and confidentiality agreements – so that you and the company are always viewed as operating to protect the company, and not loot it.

Posted in CEOs, Covenants Not to Compete, Executive Compensation, Stock Options | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Apple a Succession Planning, Corporate Culture Success Story

So the new iPad has come out, sending technophiles (which seems to be everybody these days) to the moon with glee. Combined with the recent news that Apple’s market capitalization recently broke the $500 billion mark, only the sixth company to ever do so, it seems a good time to talk about corporate culture and succession planning.

About a year ago, the buzz about Apple was how the firm would weather the absence of Steve Jobs. At the time, Jobs was on medical leave, but he ultimately succumbed to pancreatic cancer in October 2011.

Few companies have been as identified with their CEO as Apple was, so the concern that the company would falter without him at the helm was arguably well-grounded. Jobs obviously did many things quite well, but two of the most important ones were succession planning and the creation of a positive corporate culture. Both of those ensured that his life’s work would live on long after he was gone.

Clearly, the selection of Tim Cook as CEO was a great choice, but corporate culture isn’t just one person. True succession planning involves establishing a culture that values talent, success and loyalty. And those two things—the management team and corporate culture—are definitely related.

To be sure, succession planning can be dicey. Nobody wants to face their own mortality or feel irrelevant. And even the most confident, high-powered CEO can feel vulnerable if his or her presumed successor has been chosen and seems to be waiting in the wings for the CEO’s retirement (or death).

Just look at the Peyton Manning/Andrew Luck situation. Manning, who led the Indianapolis Colts to a Super Bowl win in 2007, was released from his contract this week because the team will likely draft Andrew Luck, a youngster considered to be the next Peyton Manning, to take his place. While the salary cap no doubt dictated this move, and Manning handled the news with class and style, it still wasn’t a healthy situation for the Colts organization.

Organizations looking to ensure management continuity should use diplomacy when approaching the current CEO about his or her impending retirement. Unlike the Colts, most organizations don’t have a salary cap, so they need to make it clear that they have no intention of pushing out the CEO before he or she is ready, but that they need to ensure the company lasts and thrives long after the CEO steps down.

From the CEO’s standpoint, in an ideal world, he would be intimately involved in finding his successor, as Jobs was. That will both get the CEO’s buy-in to the process and reduce (or eliminate) the chance that the CEO will try to undermine his successor. The latter happens far more often than most people think, and it’s bad for everyone concerned.

Ultimately, it’s in the CEO’s best interest to ensure that the company lives long after his tenure. After all, nobody remembers the CEOs of dead companies.

Smart companies, whether they’re in Silicon Valley or the Texas Panhandle, will want to take a lesson from Apple. Have a vision, implement policies and systems that support that vision, and hire leaders and employees who reflect that vision. By doing that, they’re building a company that will outlive any single CEO. And that’s a legacy anybody would be proud of.

Posted in Business Continuity, CEOs, Corporate culture, Sports contracts | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Dodging Land Mines During a Job Search

Job changes are almost as inevitable these days as death and taxes, but lawsuits over them don’t have to be.

There are all kinds of considerations an executive needs to keep in mind when looking for a job, depending on where she works now and where she’s looking to get hired. If those companies do business together or if they’re competitors, the executive must be conscious at all times of behaving ethically, first and foremost, even if that behavior may work against the executive when it comes to landing the new job.

But beyond the individual circumstances, there are some common sense (and common law) steps to take when shopping for a new position:

  • Don’t use company computers or company property of any kind in the job search. Not only is it almost undoubtedly against company policy, but it’s also bad form. In addition, companies can easily go back and see what the executive did on his computer (or iPad or phone), so it’s just not worth it to fudge on this one.
  • If social media of any kind is involved (LinkedIn, Facebook, or anything else), remember that what’s said and done on social media isn’t truly private. So executives using social media to job hunt need to conduct themselves as if their boss is watching, because she probably is.
  • Watch what’s put in writing. Letters to clients, colleagues, potential job contacts, or anybody else who was contacted about the job search may be discoverable should there ever be a dispute regarding the executive’s conduct. That doesn’t mean that nothing should be put in writing, since obviously at some point there will be plenty put in writing. But take care that what’s in writing is above reproach.
  • Gather an inventory of employment agreements. Most executives probably will have signed a number of agreements upon being hired, including confidentiality agreements, non-compete agreements, and possibly others. It’s a good idea to keep these on hand and understand what they mean (consult an executive employment attorney if there’s any doubt). It’s worth noting, though, that even if there’s no signed confidentiality agreement, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to disclose company secrets. Confidential information is protected by common law, so by all means keep it confidential during any job search.
  • Once a new job has been accepted, leave the old job immediately. Too often, an executive who has taken a new job is treated like a criminal (complete with security guard escort off the premises) once his employer has learned he has a new job. Avoid the “perp walk” and leave as soon as the new job has been accepted. Many new employers can’t help announcing the good news, either publicly or to a “few trusted friends,” and news like that inevitably travels at light speed. 

For executives who have already found a new position, be sure to check out our previous posts on what execs should take with them when they leave, what they absolutely shouldn’t take with them, and the best way to take other employees along with them.

Posted in CEOs, Covenants Not to Compete, Executive contracts, Legal, Litigation, Trade Secrets | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off

Is Your Pension Going to Be What You Think It’s Going to Be?

American Airlines’ request to have the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. bail out its $9 billion in unfunded pension obligations should have executives everywhere taking a hard look at their employer-funded retirement plans.

Particularly for executives who work in troubled industries, if their employer hits the shoals, it’s extremely likely that the company will be looking at its pension plan as a natural cost-cutting target. Even if the company isn’t in trouble—if it’s up for sale (which, as we know from the last blog entry, isn’t limited to troubled assets) and the new owner is looking to reduce costs—the pension plan may be trimmed or cut altogether.

That, of course, doesn’t mean all the money that was in the pension plan is lost. If the plan is taken over by the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., the government-sponsored agency that insures most private sector defined benefit pensions, the PBGC will pay those benefits to retirees.

But, and these are big buts, those benefits will stop accruing on the date of the plan termination and the payout is capped. That cap should cover most middle-income earners, but it probably won’t pay high-income earners 100 percent of their expected payout.

What can smart executives do to protect their pensions?

The first step is knowing what they have now. Executives need to read their benefit plans carefully and see how much is funded, how much is unfunded, and to what extent they can access it before their retirement.

They should also keep good employment history records, maintain a file of notices and documents relating to retirement plans and benefits, and—here’s the tough part—actually read the statements. It’s also smart to maximize other kinds of retirement savings, which most executives are hopefully already doing.

Reuters recently published a good Q&A on the matter that I recommend checking out.

The traditional, company-funded pension may not be with us much longer, so it’s in every executive’s best interests to make sure their years of hard work result in a comfortable retirement—regardless of what happens to that pension plan.

Posted in CEOs, Executive Compensation, Legal, Pension plans | Tagged , , , | Comments Off

Employee Anti-Poaching Agreements Thwart the Free Market

An interesting case is playing out as we speak in Silicon Valley, where a group of high-tech employees has sued Google, Apple, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe, Intel, and Intuit over an alleged “gentlemen’s agreement” not to recruit each other’s employees. In In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, filed last May in federal court in San Jose, Calif., the plaintiffs are relying heavily on evidence provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, which has already done its own investigation into the alleged practices.

The DOJ evidence includes several emails among the various companies alluding to their “gentlemen’s agreement” not to recruit or even offer jobs to employees of each other’s companies. One particularly damning excerpt:

On May 28, 2005, Mr. Chizen, Adobe’s CEO, emailed Mr. Jobs, then CEO of Apple, forwarding an internal Adobe email from Theresa Townsley, Adobe’s Senior Vice President for Human Resources, to others at Adobe, regarding “Recruitment of Apple Employees.” In that email, Ms. Townsley wrote: “Bruce and Steve Jobs have an agreement that we are not to solicit ANY Apple employees, and vice versa…. Please ensure all your worldwide recruiters know that we are not to solicit any Apple employee. I know that Jerry is soliciting one now, so he’ll need to back off.”

According to the terms of a September 2010 settlement with the DOJ, the companies are already forbidden from such collusion, but the civil suit by the workers is to collect on the presumably artificially reduced wages and thwarted job offers they were subject to while their employers were abiding by the agreement.

There are reasons behavior like this is prohibited: it’s anti-competitive and deprives workers from the mailroom to the C-suite the ability to ply their trade in a fair environment. If the plaintiffs’ allegations are true, their employers were clearly engaged in a conspiracy to cut job competition and keep salaries low.

Even more globally, the free market doesn’t work properly if its players are pulling their punches. Top talent, from CEOs to secretaries, need to be able to negotiate in good faith and seek better employment if their current employers aren’t giving them what they need. They can’t do that if their current employer and their prospective employer are winking at each other and playing footsie under the table.

Executives all over should be watching this case. Here at Legal Issues in the Executive Suite, we promise to keep you posted.

Posted in CEOs, Executive contracts, Legal, Litigation, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off

What to do when your successful business unit is sold

Joe Ahmad discusses the trend that companies are selling successful subsidiaries and what it means to executives.

VIDEO: Houston Executive Employment Attorney Joe Ahmad discusses the trend that involves companies selling successful subsidiaries and what it means to executives.

Success is sometimes rewarded in strange ways, such as when a company sells off a highly profitable business unit in order to raise cash (as Nestle did when it bought Cadbury and as Barnes & Noble is considering doing with its thriving Nook division). After all, it’s much easier to sell off a successful unit than an unsuccessful one, and they bring a much higher purchase price.

Trouble is, the management team that was most likely the reason for the unit’s profitability may not want to make the move. In such a case, both the buyer and the seller have an incentive to do what they can to keep that talent on-board. A stable management team helps bring a higher purchase price (which makes the seller happy) and means better prospects for future profitability (which the buyer likes).

It’s in everybody’s best interest, then, to give the management team an incentive to stay. Retention agreements, or any other agreement designed to keep talent from leaving, might offer executives pay hikes, bonuses, and other perks in exchange for staying with the company for a certain period of time after the sale. Granted, such agreements can be complicated, given the highly scrutinized atmosphere surrounding executive compensation these days. And the tax ramifications can be complex as well. But in such a high-stakes transaction, the buyer, seller and management team all have an interest in getting past those complications and making such agreements work.

What if you’re the executive and neither the buyer nor the seller has offered a retention agreement? Then it’s time to ask for one. Make the case that keeping you on-board is in everybody’s best interest. The worst they can do is say no. And if they do, you have a much better picture of your future employment prospects and can proceed accordingly.

Posted in CEOs, Change of Control Agreements, Dodd-Frank, Executive Compensation, Executive contracts, Legal, Retention agreements | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Negotiating a severance package

Litigation avoidance is very high on most companies’ priority lists, and when a company is considering letting an executive go, one of their biggest concerns is how to keep their soon-to-be-former executive from hiring someone like me to file a lawsuit on the executive’s behalf. The answer is usually fairly simple: a severance package.

A severance package can accomplish two very important things: 1) by providing the executive with various kinds of compensation and benefits, it can calm the nerves of someone who is justifiably anxious about getting back on the job market, and 2) it can head off a lawsuit against the employer. In theory, everybody wins.

An executive faced with termination should proceed cautiously, however, to make sure any package both leaves him in a good financial position and helps him find a new job. Here are some of the questions I’m asked most frequently about severance packages:

  • My employer doesn’t usually offer severance. Why would they give me one? If a company does not have a written severance plan, then it is generally not obligated to give any severance whatsoever. That’s what unemployment benefits are for. In some instances, a company may have an informal policy of giving severance, but they are not obligated to so (without a formal written severance plan). Nonetheless, I always tell my clients that it never hurts to ask. If you’re already out of a job, what’s the worst they can do?
  • How much should I ask for? First, it’s important to know that a severance package isn’t just money. But since money is probably your first concern, try to suggest a figure that is based on expected months of unemployment, and use that as the rationale. Also, if you have unvested options or stock, ask that the vesting be accelerated. Regarding unused vacation or sick time, it helps to check written company policy, if any. If there is no policy, you can still ask for it as part of a severance package. It’s also always helpful to ask for your COBRA payments to be reimbursed for the number of months you expect to be unemployed (keep in mind you may have a waiting period for medical insurance at new employer).
  • What do I want besides money? In order to make it easier for you to find a job, you’ll want to ask for a release of any non-compete obligations, as well as a good reference. You might also want to ask that you be listed as eligible for rehire or that your termination be called a layoff, if it isn’t already.
  • What if my employer asks me to sign a release? Don’t be surprised if they do, since that’s one of the reasons your employer would offer a severance package in the first place. While it’s typical and understandable to release potential claims arising out of the termination of your employment, you typically would not want to release any vested benefits such as pensions, stock, options, etc. So you’ll want to read any such release very carefully.

For all of these reasons, I advise any executive who has been terminated (or thinks he might be) to consult a qualified executive employment lawyer for help in analyzing the potential legal leverage you might have in negotiating your severance package.

Don’t let the bruised ego you may be feeling upon learning of your imminent termination keep you from ensuring your continued employability and your family’s financial well-being.

 

Posted in Covenants Not to Compete, Executive contracts, Legal, Stock Options | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off

What’s the Best Way to Take People With You to a New Company?

I’ve devoted a couple of blogs (here and here) to what things executives should and should not take with them when they change employers. Simply playing that part right can help avoid litigation with former employers.

Where it gets really dicey, though, is when executives want to take people with them. It’s natural, of course, to want your team with you at your next job. Your treasured assistant, longtime protégé, and lifelong right-hand man/woman, among others, more than likely played a major role in your success at your previous employer, and you wouldn’t want to leave them behind to face an uncertain future without you.

But when it comes to litigation avoidance, there are right ways and wrong ways to recruit from your former employer.

First, examine any agreements you have that might restrict your ability to recruit. Many companies require executives and other employees to sign non-recruitment or non-solicitation agreements that restrict their ability to recruit employees away. They are not always enforceable, but you should at least be aware of them so you can have a lawyer analyze them for you. 

Sometimes companies also have “confidentiality agreements” or policies that require executives to keep employee information private. Frequently, companies use these provisions to claim that an executive cannot recruit away employees, at least if the executive is relying on confidential information as defined in these agreements or policies. Again, it is helpful to get a legal opinion to determine what you can or cannot do if these circumstances apply to you.

Also, you should not take any company property to help you recruit employees. Just as a document containing contact information for customers can be a confidential and proprietary document, so too can an employee list. And it does not matter whether that document is in printed or digital form. Coming in to work the night before resigning and downloading such information onto a thumb drive is often a red flag that someone is taking something they should not.

But even assuming that you are not taking any company documents, and that you are subject to no restrictive agreements or policies, you are still not necessarily in the clear as far as recruiting other employees is concerned. Even without a specific agreement or policy, executives in most states have fiduciary duties or duties of loyalty to the company they currently work for. 

Clearly, recruiting fellow employees to come with you while you’re still working for the company is not only bad form, but it’s generally regarded as a breach of fiduciary duty or duty of loyalty. You simply can’t maintain those duties if you’re actively recruiting other employees away to a competitor. Once you leave, those employees can be fair game, but until then, you should avoid active recruitment.

Even after you leave, you should consider the wisdom — or lack thereof — of sending out a mass email or letter telling all your contacts that you’re leaving Firm X and moving to Firm Y. Of course, you should absolutely not do so while you’re still at Firm X. But even after you have left, you should know that because many companies regard contact information for employees to be confidential information, those emails and letters could end up being used as evidence that an executive misused confidential information. 

As noted above, some companies explicitly state in their agreements or policies that such information is confidential. Even without such policies, some companies claim that this information is confidential as a matter of law, or that you must have stolen company documents to get the addresses for the mailing. While the confidential nature of employee contact information is highly dubious and always hotly contested, particularly without a specific agreement, an executive should at least realize that this type of mailing can provoke a lawsuit, warranted or not.

If you want to bring employees with you to your new company, the best way to do so is by way of personal phone calls after you’ve moved to your new employer. Granted, this tactic can make for some strained going-away celebrations, but those hurt feelings hopefully can be soothed later.

Once you’re with your new company, you are in theory free to recruit from your former employer. I say “in theory” because those employees may themselves have signed covenants not to compete or other agreements that restrict their ability to work for a competitor.

So just as a good first step is to determine what restrictions have been placed on your ability to compete, recruit, or use confidential information, the next step is to ask the people you want to recruit to your new firm what agreements, if any, they have with their current employer. A thorough review of those documents (preferably by an experienced executive employment lawyer) should give the potential employer an idea of whether the employee is free to make the leap.

Once you know your recruit is interested and legally available, you still should make something clear to them and, by extension, your old employer: They cannot bring confidential information with them to the new company. Of course, you can’t hire someone because they can bring confidential information with them, and their hiring cannot be contingent on providing a trade secret or other confidential information (customer lists, etc.).

But it’s a good idea to put in writing that new employees are not to bring any proprietary information with them to their new employer and that the new company’s policies prohibit the use of another company’s confidential information. Such “good faith” efforts — when genuine — can go a long way toward heading off potential litigation.

There are no guarantees that the former employer won’t sue. But, as in so many other areas, litigation avoidance is often less about the law than it is about courtesy and conscientiousness. Making it clear that you expect recruits to abide by their employment agreements can create useful goodwill, even in this touchy situation.

Posted in CEOs, Covenants Not to Compete, Executive contracts, Fiduciary Duty, Legal, Litigation, Trade Secrets | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off