My LLC is under a non-compete with a former client in one state that basically says not to provide any IT consulting or hosting that may be considered competition to what they do (lets call them "Acme Corp"). So if a potential client in that same state approaches me and I refer them in writing to my former client, Acme Corp, with whom my LLC has the non-compete, and my potential client responds in writing they dont want service from Acme Corp. Is it still competing at that point if I then take them on as a client?


During the term of this Agreement and for a period expiring two (2) years after the termination of this Agreement for any reason, Contractor covenants and agrees that Contractor will not:

a. Hire, offer to hire, entice away or in any other manner persuade or attempt to persuade any officer, employee or agent of [Acme Corp] or any of its affiliates to alter or discontinue a relationship with [Acme Corp] or to do any act that is inconsistent with the interests of [Acme Corp] or its affiliates;

b. Directly or indirectly solicit, have contact for purposes of selling any products and/or services to (except on behalf of [Acme Corp]), divert, or take away any customers of [Acme Corp] or any of its affiliates; or

c. Directly or indirectly solicit, divert, or in any other manner persuade or attempt to persuade any supplier of [Acme Corp] or any of its affiliates to alter or discontinue its relationship with [Acme Corp] or any of its affiliates.

d. For the purposes of this Section 4, businesses that are deemed to compete with [Acme Corp] include, without limitation, businesses engaged in IT system sales, integration, consulting, application development, maintenance and hosting. Competition also includes any additional goods or services that [Acme Corp] provides its customer(s), including goods and services that [Acme Corp] offers or prepares to offer in the future while Contractor is employed with [Acme Corp]. Notwithstanding Contractor's obligations under this Section 7, Contractor will be entitled to own, as a passive investor, up to five percent (5%) of any publicly traded company without violating this provision.

e. [Acme Corp] and Contractor agree that: this provision does not impose an undue hardship on Contractor and is not injurious to the public; that this provision is necessary to protect the business of [Acme Corp] and its affiliates, including their trade secrets; the nature of Contractor's responsibilities with [Acme Corp] under this Agreement require Contractor to have access to and develop confidential information which is valuable and confidential to all of the Business; the scope of this Section 7 is reasonable in terms of length of time and geographic scope; and adequate consideration supports this Section 7, including consideration herein.

.. where [Acme Corp] is a fictional entity

UPDATE: Based on interaction with Ross Ridge below, let me clarify:

  1. my new client never intended to use Acme corp in the first place

  2. therefore Acme Corp did not lose out on the possibility of servicing this client because this client wants nothing to do with Acme corp in the first place

  3. I have obtained all this info in my agreement with the new client

  • You say the clause "basically says not to [...]". Could you provide the exact language of that clause? At first glance, you would still be competing. But the wording of that clause might make a difference. Jun 3, 2020 at 7:18
  • @IñakiViggers, agreement section posted as requested.
    – Michael M
    Jun 3, 2020 at 20:14
  • what states are involved? Some states allow non-competes only in limited circumstances. Jun 3, 2020 at 23:29
  • @GeorgeWhite, AZ
    – Michael M
    Jun 3, 2020 at 23:30

3 Answers 3


The non-compete clause encompasses entities which have been customers (perhaps including prospective ones, although that is debatable) of Acme at any point during your relation with Acme. If the potential client (henceforth "PC") was not Acme's customer during your relation with Acme, then the clause does not apply because the company cannot reasonably argue that you took away its customer. It is unclear from your post whether PC has had a business relation with Acme at all.

If the clause is applicable, then your only option is that you or PC ask Acme to waive the clause as to PC. Since PC decidedly is discarding Acme this time, he seemingly has stronger leverage than you to persuade Acme on the waiver. After all, Acme's intransigence would only reinforce PC's refusal to assign to Acme any other business in the future.

Absent a prior relation between PC and Acme, your approach of first referring PC to Acme is needlessly risky and could backfire since the prospect of PC's business would be brought within scope of the clause. The scenario that you voluntarily make the referral --prior to servicing the PC-- still affords to Acme the plausible allegation that you prompted Acme to incur losses (in the form of resources Acme spent in trying to "close the sale" with PC) despite your knowledge beforehand that PC would retain you.

  • 1
    Marking as accepted answer because it makes the most sense and addresses different aspects in the most logical manner. Also, it considers what "competition" actually means in this context.
    – Michael M
    Jun 3, 2020 at 23:29

Of course it is still competing.

The customers'preference is not relevant, as any customer that you service is prefering to deal with you rather than with your former employer. If they had prefered getting the service from your previous employer, they would have tried getting a contract with your previous employer.

The argument that "because the customer prefers me I am no longer bound by the non-compete" would make any non-compete clause pointless.

What is relevant is that you have the obligation (within the contents of the clause, and as long as it is legally enforceable) not to provide those services.

That obligation is from you to your former employer, a third party (the customer) generally cannot waive it, and neither can you "absolve yourself" (unless the contract allows for a way to do it), the same way that your customer cannot "absolve itself" from paying you the amount agreed in a contract unless there is some kind of stipulation allowing for it in the contract.

  • Its not that the customer prefers me, its that they refuse to use my former client (not actually an employer), but it sounds like that does not actually make any difference.
    – Michael M
    Jun 3, 2020 at 19:52
  • @MikeM It would if you could prove that the new client wouldn't have used the services of your former client even if you had refused them. In that case, your former client wouldn't have suffered any damages because of your breach of contract and so wouldn't be able claim any damages because of it.
    – Ross Ridge
    Jun 3, 2020 at 20:26
  • @RossRidge - Thanks! That is what I am trying to explain ... (1) that my new client never intended or will intent to use Acme corp in the first place. (2) Acme Corp did not lose out on the possibility of servicing this client because this client wants nothing to do with Acme corp. (3) I have obtained all this info in my agreement with the new client.
    – Michael M
    Jun 3, 2020 at 20:31
  • @MikeM Just beware that it may not be as easy you think to prove that new client wouldn't have gone to "Acme Corp" if you hadn't breached the contract. Acme can point to the money you would earn from the new client as damages they suffered, you have to show that's money they couldn't never have earned.
    – Ross Ridge
    Jun 3, 2020 at 20:54
  • @RossRidge it sounds like the new client needs to have some initial consultation with Acme Corp which they do not pursue for a stated reason, such as, Acme Corp does not offer the service they need or in their opinion cannot provide that service to their satisfaction or required level of competency. For example, if the new client's project requires a certain certification but Acme Corp does not have it and my firm does, then in my mind its not even competition because Acme Corp cannot meet the requirement and therefore cannot "compete" at the level required by the client.
    – Michael M
    Jun 3, 2020 at 21:08

I know this was a couple of years ago, and this is jurisdiction dependent, the non-compete clause could be invalidated because the term is an unreasonable amount of time or an unreasonable restriction based on the services or service lifecycle provided by your respective companies.

For instance if the time of receiving work to completion of a job is 3 months then the 2 year exclusion would be an unreasonable time to prevent you from plying your trade. As @Iñaki mentions the non-compete is primarily intended to preventing you from soliciting existing or in the pipeline customers away from the company you have the non-compete with not a prevention from doing your own legwork and generating your own customer pool.

  • "preventing you from soliciting existing" - but they are Mormons. They don't see things this way. As Mormons, they feel they are entitled to everything owned by non-Mormons. For example, they attempted to have me sign a contract giving them full access to my PERSONAL emails and PERSONAL voicemail and texts. I worked with these freaks for years and its really quite fascinating how sure they are that they own you once they pay you to get something done. Moreover, they would claim everyone in the industry as in-the-pipeline customers. Anyway, its been years now. I think I'm in the clear.
    – Michael M
    Dec 20, 2022 at 4:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .