Gqeberha, South Africa — In a remarkable legal showdown, family lawyer Lizette Ferns has secured a significant victory against a prominent law firm, Kaplan Blumberg Attorneys, concerning a contested restraint of trade clause. The high court’s decision has resonated positively among younger attorneys at larger firms, who view the ruling as a reaffirmation of their professional autonomy.
Ferns experienced a wave of relief last week when the Gqeberha high court dismissed Kaplan Blumberg’s attempt to enforce the clause that would have barred her from working with clients after leaving the firm. This legal battle dates back to her tenure at Kaplan Blumberg, where she was initially hired in 2012 under a contract that included a restraint of trade provision. She quickly rose through the ranks, eventually becoming head of the family law department and later a salaried partner in 2017.
Despite her advancements, Ferns declined to sign a new contract that perpetuated the restraint of trade clause, leading to a deterioration in her relationship with the firm. Her dissent continued through subsequent contracts in 2021 and 2024, yet the clause remained a point of contention. Ultimately, she resigned on March 5, clearly communicating her intent to inform clients of her departure and contest any enforcement of the restraint.
Following her resignation, several clients sought to sever ties with Kaplan in favor of continuing with Ferns. Anticipating legal action, she informed the firm of her plans and her willingness to challenge any attempts to enforce the clause. The case escalated as Kaplan sought a court order to uphold the restraint, aiming to prevent Ferns from soliciting clients and employees.
Judge Nozuko Mjali ruled that the central issue was whether the restraint of trade provision was valid, emphasizing that certainty was crucial for both parties involved. Despite recognizing the urgency of the situation, the judge noted that Kaplan had not proven the existence of a binding restraint regarding Ferns’s employment.
Mjali highlighted that after Ferns’ promotion to salaried partner, she did not sign the updated contract and that the original contract was no longer relevant. The court ultimately dismissed Kaplan Blumberg’s application, ordering the firm to bear the legal costs.
Speaking on the judgment, Kaplan Blumberg partner Chris Unwin expressed disappointment and indicated the firm might pursue an appeal, which would pause the court’s decision. Ferns, in contrast, welcomed the ruling as a gratifying relief, allowing her to shift focus toward her practice and potential new clients.
Several attorneys from the Bay area also voiced support for Ferns, citing the case as encouraging for others facing similar constraints in their careers. “The court’s decision underscores a significant win for legal professionals navigating restrictive agreements,” one said.
The potential for an appeal looms large, but for now, Ferns is eager to move forward, as the landscape of professional legal practice continues to evolve.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.