Can a corporation make its in-house lawyer sign a non-compete agreement to protect trade secrets?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer serving as in-house counsel for a corporation was asked to sign a non-compete agreement that would prohibit him from working for a similar corporation for two years, motivated in part by the corporation's concern about preserving trade secrets that might be revealed to the attorney. The question was whether the in-house lawyer could enter into such an agreement without violating Rule 5.6.

The committee concluded the agreement would violate Rule 5.6(a), which provides that a lawyer shall not participate in offering or making a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the lawyer's right to practice after termination of the relationship, except for retirement benefits. It explained that the corporation was not without recourse to protect its trade secrets: Rule 1.6 already requires a lawyer not to reveal information relating to the representation, covering all information relating to the representation whatever its source, so the corporation could instead require, as a condition of employment, a confidentiality agreement promising to preserve its trade secrets. The committee cited Carolina Chemical Co. v. Muckenfuss for the limit that a confidentiality provision defining trade secrets so broadly as to cover virtually all information acquired during employment is unenforceable.

The committee noted that other rules were also implicated: Rule 1.7(a) and (b) bar a representation directly adverse to, or materially limited by responsibilities to, another client or third person absent reasonable belief and consent, and Rule 1.9(c) precludes a lawyer from using information from a former representation to the former client's disadvantage except as Rules 1.6 or 3.3 allow. It added that, under trade-secret law, a former employee may be enjoined from threatened misappropriation, including under an "inevitable disclosure" doctrine (citing PepsiCo v. Redmond), even absent a written agreement. So, consistent with Rules 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9, accepting employment with one employer may in some circumstances preclude certain later employment, and Rule 5.6 does not change that result; the lawyer may enter an appropriate confidentiality agreement even if it has some impact on future employment opportunities.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a company require its in-house lawyer to sign a two-year non-compete?

A: The committee concluded that the described non-compete would violate Rule 5.6(a), which bars employment agreements restricting a lawyer's right to practice after the relationship ends.

Q: How can the company protect its trade secrets instead?

A: The committee concluded the company could require a confidentiality agreement as a condition of employment, consistent with Rules 1.6 and 5.6, though such an agreement cannot define trade secrets so broadly as to be unenforceable.

Q: Do other rules already limit where the lawyer can work next?

A: The committee noted that Rules 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9, together with trade-secret law (including an inevitable-disclosure doctrine), may in some circumstances preclude certain later employment even without a non-compete.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted South Carolina RPC 5.6(a) (restrictions on a lawyer's right to practice), 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7(a) and (b) (conflicts of interest), and 1.9(c) (use of a former client's information), corresponding to the like-numbered Model Rules, against the backdrop of South Carolina and federal trade-secret law.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 5.6(a) / Model Rule 5.6: restrictions on the right to practice.
• South Carolina RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6: confidentiality.
• South Carolina RPC 1.7(a), 1.7(b) / Model Rule 1.7: conflicts of interest.
• South Carolina RPC 1.9(c) / Model Rule 1.9: use of a former client's information.

Cases:

• Carolina Chemical Co. v. Muckenfuss, 322 S.C. 289, 471 S.E.2d 721 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996), on overbroad confidentiality provisions.
• PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995), on inevitable disclosure of trade secrets.

See also

• No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-00-11/

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 00-11

A lawyer who is in-house counsel for a corporation has been asked to sign an agreement not to compete which would prohibit him from working for a similar corporation for two years. One of the concerns of the corporation is the preservation of its trade secrets which may be revealed to the attorney.

Question:
May an in-house lawyer enter into a non-compete agreement without violating Rule 5.6 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct?

Opinion:
Rule 5.6(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct provides that "A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making: (a) a partnership or employment agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning benefits upon retirement." The non-compete agreement described would violate the clear provisions of Rule 5.6.

The corporation is not without recourse to protect its trade secrets disclosed to an employee lawyer, however. First of all, Rule 1.6 mandates that "A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation. . . ." "The confidentially rule applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source." Comment to Rule 1.6. Fully consistent with Rule 1.6 and Rule 5.6, the corporation could insist that a lawyer employee sign a confidentially agreement promising to preserve the corporation's trade secrets as a condition to employment. But see Carolina Chemical Company, Inc. v. Muckenfuss, 322 S.C. 289, 471 S.E.2d 721 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding that a contractual provision, which prohibited former employee from disclosing trade secrets and defined trade secrets so broadly that virtually all information an employee acquired during employment fell within its definition, was unenforceable as a matter of law).

Other ethical rules are also implicated. Pursuant to Rule 1.7(a), a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation. Similarly, Rule 1.7(b) provides that a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibility to another client or to a third person unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation. In addition, Rule 1.9(c) precludes a lawyer who formerly represented a client from using information relating to the early representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as allowed by Rules 1.6 or 3.3.

Under the law pertaining to trade secrets, a former employee may be enjoined from threatened misappropriation of trade secrets even in the absence of a written confidentiality agreement or agreement not to compete. Pursuant to an emerging doctrine, a former employee may be enjoined from working for a competitor "when the employee's new duties entail the inevitable disclosure, or unauthorized use of, the former employer's trade secrets. In determining whether disclosure of the former employer's trade secrets is 'inevitable,' courts will consider the degree of competition between the former and present employer, the nature of the employee's new duties, and evidence of good or bad faith on the part of the employee and the new employer." 15 Z. Cavitch, Business Organizations, Section 235.04[3] (Matthew Bender 2000). See also PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir. 1995). Thus, pursuant to the law of trade secrets, and consistent with the provisions of Rules 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9, in some circumstances, accepting employment with one employer may preclude certain other subsequent employment. Rule 5.6 is not so broad as to change that result. Moreover, the lawyer may enter into an appropriate confidentiality agreement even if it has some impact on the lawyer's future employment opportunities.