Morris, Manning & Martin's TechLawFlash is a series of regular e-mail bulletins intended to help keep you informed of legal developments that may have an impact on the use or exploitation of technology. This is the first in the series. This Issue’s Topic: Georgia Nonsolicitation Clauses In a Georgia Court of Appeals case decided this spring (Palmer & Cay of Georgia v. Lockton Companies, 615 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. Ct. App., 2005)), former salesmen for Palmer & Cay successfully defeated a nonsolicitation of customers clause, with the court adopting a tough stance with respect to such clauses. The court said the particular clause was too broad for three reasons: (1) "it prohibited the employees from servicing or selling to a client of [Palmer & Cay] a product that the employee never sold or serviced while employed"; (2) "the employees were prohibited from contacting clients regardless of how long it had been since they sold to these clients and regardless of whether that client had severed its relationship with [Palmer & Cay]"; and (3) "it prohibited the employee from servicing or selling to [Palmer & Cay]’s clients a product that [Palmer & Cay] may no longer offer". The court didn’t clarify whether satisfaction by Palmer & Cay of any one of the deficiencies would have saved the clause. Implications for you If you intend to use nonsolicitation of customer clauses in your agreements with employees, resellers, sales agents or others, make sure to draft the clause with special care, especially if Georgia law applies. For more information, please contact a member of MMM’s Technology Group. If you no longer wish to receive TechLawFlashes, please click the "Unsubscribe" button below.