Recently, in a New York County case, our client succeeded in getting a non-solicit and non-compete case brought against him dropped - for $0 - even before depositions or discovery. And here's the kicker - had we proceeded with document discovery, our client was potentially in a fair amount of trouble - because they had clearly solicited their prior business contacts - in clear violation of the restrictive covenant contained in their employment agreement with their former employer.
"How did you make that happen?" you ask.
In truth, there was some strategy involved, but the more important piece was seeing the whole proverbial chess board.
More specifically, we were fortunate in that our client's former employer had also sued our client's new employer overseas in Europe, and was handed a stinging loss over there, and, in accordance with the European rule (unlike the general rule here in the U.S.), they were hit with paying the winning side's legal fees as well.
Recognizing that as it was playing out, we took a more passive approach to defending the case, akin to a half-court offense in basketball terms. So, when the plaintiff was forced to decide how aggressively they wanted to move forward with their case, they naturally became more gun-shy, and ultimately decided it wasn't worth the time, effort and money to continue pursuing similar claims here, especially when they had lost so badly in Europe.
The takeaway should be obvious: when it comes to litigation, one size clearly does not fit all, and in order to do right by your client (which in this case saved them significant legal fees to defend the case, and possibly a large settlement payment to the plaintiff), the lawyer needs to adapt to the unique facts of the case.
