Hannah T. Joseph to Speak at BBA’s IP Year in Review

Hannah T. Joseph will be speaking on a panel about trade secrets at the Boston Bar Association’s 20th Annual Intellectual Property Year in Review. The event will be held at the Boston Bar Association on January 23, 2020, from 12:00 to 5:45 p.m., with a reception to follow. More information is available here.

The 20th Annual IP Year in Review is sponsored by the BBA’s Intellectual Property Section.

This year’s Trade Secrets panel also includes the following speakers:

Hannah Joseph is an attorney with the firm’s litigation group, focusing her practice on the growing areas of trade secrets law, restrictive covenants, employee mobility, and unfair competition. She has counseled both corporate and individual clients on the use and enforceability of noncompete, nonsolicitation, and nondisclosure agreements, and successfully litigated cases on both sides regarding the enforcement of such agreements. Hannah also represents corporate and individual clients in disputes involving breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intra-corporate matters.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Hannah Joseph and Kyle Vieira Give Presentation on Electronic Discovery

On January 6, 2020, Hannah T. Joseph and Kyle Vieira gave a presentation at the Boston Bar Association on electronic discovery. The program was titled E-Discovery Basics: Who, What, Where, When, WHY!

According to the description of the program, “E-Discovery has become a critical component to any litigation. This program will provide tips and tricks for how to develop an e-discovery strategy, how to engage and manage the vendor relationship, and how to satisfy your discovery obligations.”

Hannah and Kyle recently co-authored an article titled “A Conversation that Every Employer Should Have with Its eDiscovery Vendor.” In their article, Kyle and Hannah offer practical advice to employers about working with eDiscovery vendors.

According to their article, “eDiscovery, which encompasses the collection, preservation, analysis, review, and production of electronically-stored information (ESI), is a necessary and often critical component of litigation. Indeed, eDiscovery is not only expected in most cases, but can also determine litigation strategy and outcomes. Given the sheer volume of potentially-relevant ESI in any given matter, as well as the evolving nature of legal disputes (a ‘small’ matter can quickly balloon into full-blown litigation involving multiple custodians) the appropriate management of eDiscovery is often key to litigating effectively and controlling costs. In most instances, this will mean partnering with the right eDiscovery vendor.”

Hannah Joseph is an attorney with the firm’s litigation group, focusing her practice on the growing areas of trade secrets law, restrictive covenants, employee mobility, and unfair competition. She has counseled both corporate and individual clients on the use and enforceability of noncompete, nonsolicitation, and nondisclosure agreements, and successfully litigated cases on both sides regarding the enforcement of such agreements. Hannah also represents corporate and individual clients in disputes involving breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and intra-corporate matters.

Kyle Vieira is also an attorney with the firm’s litigation group, and he has worked on various noncompete and trade secrets matters since he started working for Beck Reed Riden LLP in 2019. Kyle graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2019. He was a member of Boston University’s Intellectual Property Society and participated in Moot Court.

Beck Reed Riden LLPis Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Steve Riden Elected President of Boston College Law School Alumni Board

On November 1, 2019, Stephen Riden was elected President of the Board of Directors for the Boston College Law School Alumni Association. His one-year term as president began on January 1, 2020.

The stated purpose of the BC Law Alumni Association is to “further the ideals and tradition of Boston College Law School through the education and involvement of alumni in the life of the Law School and to promote the tradition of service to others, consistent with the Jesuit tradition, through the development and involvement of alumni, students and faculty.”

One goal of the BC Law Alumni Association is to connect and reconnect the graduates of BC Law to the institution and to one another. There are nearly 14,000 alumni of BC Law School.

Steve Riden joined the Alumni Board in 2011, and has served on the Board in various capacities, including Treasurer and Secretary.

In 2010, Steve received Boston College Law School’s 2010 Chapter Award for Boston.

Steve Riden graduated from Boston College Law School in 1999, and he graduated from Boston College in 1995.

Stephen has extensive experience litigating business disputes involving breach of contract, fraud, unfair competition, trade secrets, and noncompete agreements. He has represented companies in a variety of governmental investigations. Stephen also has substantial experience representing owners involved in intra-corporate disputes, including shareholder litigation and close-corporation control matters.

Steve Riden was selected as one of the Top 100 Lawyers in New England and Top 100 Lawyers in Massachusetts.

Steve is the author of the first chapter in the book Damages, Interest, and Attorney Fees in Massachusetts Litigation. The chapter, supplemented in 2017, is titled “General Law of Damages in Massachusetts.”

Beck Reed Riden LLPis Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

U.S. News Includes Beck Reed Riden LLP in 2020 Best Law Firms Ranking

Beck Reed Riden LLP has again received national recognition in U.S News & World Report’s “Best Law Firms” publication for 2020.

For the second time, Beck Reed Riden LLP received a national ranking in addition to several regional rankings. Specifically, U.S. News & World Report designated Beck Reed Riden LLP as a Tier 3 firm nationally in the category of Litigation – Labor & Employment.

The complete list of Beck Reed Riden LLP’s rankings is as follows:

National rankings:
Regional rankings:

The 2020 rankings are based on peer reviews and client input. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm must have a lawyer listed in The Best Lawyers in America. Russell Beck, Nicole Daly, Stephen Reed, Stephen Riden were recently selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2020.

Ranked firms, presented in tiers, are listed on a national and/or metropolitan scale. Receiving a tier designation reflects the high level of respect a firm has earned among other leading lawyers and clients in the same communities and the same practice areas for their abilities, their professionalism and their integrity. The “Best Law Firms” rankings can be seen in their entirety by visiting bestlawfirms.usnews.com.

U.S. News & World Report is a registered trademark of U.S. News & World Report, L.P. Best Lawyers is a registered trademark of BL Rankings, LLC.

Beck Reed Riden LLPis Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Russell Beck and Erika Hahn Featured in Law360 on Federal Noncompete Reform

Russell Beck and Erika Hahn‘s analysis of the misconceptions underlying various efforts to reform, and even ban, noncompete agreements was published by Law360 under the title, “Noncompete Misconceptions May Be Inhibiting Reform.”

The full analysis is also available (without subscription) at Fair Competition Law as “Federal Noncompete Initiatives: When you can’t convince the states, ask the feds.

The analysis discusses recent efforts at the federal level to restrict or ban noncompetes, which follows on the heels of several years of legislative efforts across myriad states to modify noncompete laws. Although very few states have enacted laws that ban noncompete agreements outright, recently-filed federal legislation seeks to just that.

According to Russell and Erika’s analysis, much of the push for restrictions or a ban is premised on:

  • The mistaken assumption that Silicon Valley is the epicenter of tech because California bans noncompetes;
  • Recent preliminary, inconclusive and somewhat inconsistent studies, the nuances of which are ignored;
  • The mistaken belief that trade secret laws and nondisclosure agreements provide adequate protections for trade secrets;
  • The mistaken belief that noncompetes prevent employees from using their general skill and knowledge; and
  • The prevalence of abuses in the use and drafting of noncompetes.

As discussed in the article, Russell Beck submitted testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship hearing on “Noncompete Agreements and American Workers.”

In his testimony and in the article, Russell made the five following recommendations:

  1. Ban noncompetes for low-wage workers.

As a group, low-wage workers rarely have the level of exposure to trade secrets or depth and breadth of customer relationships that might warrant the enforcement of a noncompete, given the countervailing issues.

  1. Ban noncompetes for medical professionals.

The use of noncompetes for doctors, nurses and other health care providers has received substantial scrutiny in the past few years, with many states changing their noncompete laws to ban such agreements. Given the overwhelming public interest in patients having the ability to select who provides their medical care, exempting medical professionals is certainly a rational policy.

  1. Require employers to provide advance notice if they wish employees to sign a noncompete.

One of the other major criticisms of noncompetes is that they are often sprung on employees the day they show up to work. A simple way to eliminate that problem, while retaining the potential benefits of negotiated noncompetes . . ., is to require advance notice.

  1. Adopt the so-called purple pencil approach for overly broad noncompetes.

That approach is a hybrid of the reformation approach (where courts rewrite overly broad agreements) and the red pencil approach (where courts void an overly broad noncompete in its entirety). Specifically, it requires courts to void an overly broad noncompete unless the language reflects a good faith intent to draft a narrow restriction, in which case the court may reform it

  1. Expressly authorize springing noncompetes.

To the extent that one of the goals is to encourage companies to limit their use of noncompetes generally, employers must have a viable remedy for when employees violate other, less-restrictive, obligations such as nondisclosure agreements and nonsolicitation agreements, misappropriate trade secrets, or breach their fiduciary duties to the company. In Massachusetts, the new noncompete law expressly authorizes courts to do this, essentially by imposing a noncompete.

These recommendations were among those suggested by the Obama administration in its 2016 call to action on noncompetes and adopted by many of the states making changes to their laws in the past few years.

In July 2019, Law360 published Russell Beck’s analysis of misconceptions in the noncompete debate.

____

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized, and includes:

  • Over twenty four years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete matters
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2019 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell Beck is a “terrific” attorney, who “is an excellent choice of counsel regarding noncompete agreements and the resolution of restrictive covenant disputes.” Chambers noted that Russell “basically wrote the new Massachusetts statute on noncompetes” and that “he’s an expert in employee mobility and nonrestrictive covenants.”

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

 

Russell Beck and Stephen Riden Named Top 100 Lawyers

Super Lawyers Magazine has selected Russell Beck and Stephen Riden as two of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Massachusetts and two of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in New England for 2019.

Russell BeckRussell Beck is a business and intellectual property litigator, nationally recognized for his trade secrets and noncompete experience. Russell has more than twenty-five years of experience as a complex business and intellectual property litigator, representing corporate and individual clients throughout the country in federal and state trial and appellate courts, arbitrations, and mediations.

Steve Riden is a commercial litigator who represents corporate and individual clients in a wide array of disputes across the country. Steve has extensive experience litigating business disputes involving breach of contract, fraud, unfair competition, trade secrets, and noncompete agreements. Steve also has substantial experience representing owners involved in intra-corporate disputes.

The selection of the top 100 Super Lawyers in Massachusetts and New England is based on a process of peer review following a survey of lawyers from the region. The Super Lawyers selection process is described in detail here.

Russell Beck and Steve Riden have been selected to Super Lawyers Top 100 lists in several prior years.

is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

Beck Reed Riden LLP Attorneys Named Super Lawyers

Russell Beck, Stephen ReedStephen Riden, and Barry Guryan have been recognized as Super Lawyers by the 2019 issue of Massachusetts Super Lawyers Magazine. In addition, Nicole Daly and Hannah Joseph have been recognized as Rising Stars by the Magazine.

Super Lawyers Magazine has also selected Russell Beck and Stephen Riden as two of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Massachusetts and two of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in New England for 2019.

The title of Super Lawyer is given to 5% of the lawyers in the Commonwealth while the Rising Star designation recognizes 2.5% of lawyers under 40.  The Super Lawyers selection process is described in detail here.

 

Beck Reed Riden LLPis Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

A Conversation that Every Employer Should Have with Its eDiscovery Vendor

eDiscovery, which encompasses the collection, preservation, analysis, review, and production of electronically-stored information (ESI), is a necessary and often critical component of litigation.

Indeed, eDiscovery is not only expected in most cases, but can also determine litigation strategy and outcomes. Given the sheer volume of potentially-relevant ESI in any given matter, as well as the evolving nature of legal disputes (a “small” matter can quickly balloon into full-blown litigation involving multiple custodians) the appropriate management of eDiscovery is often key to litigating effectively and controlling costs. In most instances, this will mean partnering with the right eDiscovery vendor.

Oftentimes, eDiscovery vendors will offer volume-discount pricing and other perks in order to earn a spot on an employer’s coveted preferred vendor list. For those employers who are involved with the vetting of their eDiscovery vendors, below are some considerations to keep in mind.

  1. Your vendor’s capabilities – starting the conversation

 When it comes to capabilities, not all vendors are built the same. It is important, at the outset of your matter, to anticipate the needs of your case and select a vendor who can best meet them. Consider whether your vendor can provide the following:

  • Collection and preservation of data;
  • Forensics analysis;
  • A review platform (and related support and technologies);
  • A managed review of documents; and
  • Expert testimony

Some cases (such as, for example, a large-scale trade secrets litigation) may require the full gamut of services. In those instances, it may be best to retain a vendor that can perform each of the above-listed functions effectively, so as to streamline processes. (In this regard, you can trust – but should verify – vendors’ representations about their capabilities. More on this, below.) In other cases, it may suffice to select a vendor who specializes in only some of these processes. In either instance, it is important to pick the right vendor early in the process; switching vendors mid-case can create myriad issues (including chain-of-custody problems) and complicate expert testimony.

Once you have started the conversation, how do you determine whether your vendor can perform the functions it says it can, and at the speed and with the efficiency and accuracy that you need? Having an informed conversation about each of the above-listed functions will be key.

  1. Forensics analysis – a vendor can be a roadblock or an E-ZPass

When it comes to forensics, partnering with a vendor that is responsive and can produce detailed, accurate reports within an expedited timeframe is essential. Moreover, the vendor should be able to produce the reports that you will need and in a format that is sufficiently user-friendly. (A report that provides in-depth analysis can be much more helpful than a series of Excel spreadsheets containing raw data, although – in most cases – you will want both.) Finally, if you anticipate that your matter might become litigation, you will want to ensure that the person performing the forensics analysis has testified successfully before and can meet the Daubert standard.

With these in mind, here are some questions that you may consider asking your vendor:

  • How long does it take you to image a computer? An iPhone?
  • What is your typical turnaround for providing forensics analysis?
  • How much notice do you need to expedite a forensic review?
  • How big is your forensic team?
  • How many dedicated computers do you have within your forensics department?
  • Do you provide 24-hour and weekend support? If so, is there an upcharge?
  • Will there be a case manager assigned to my matter to ensure continuity?
  • What kinds of forensics reports can you produce? (Standard reports include connectivity, cloud activity, file access, internet activity, and among others.)
  • What do your reports look like? How user-friendly are they?
  • Do you have people who can provide expert testimony?

Don’t be afraid to ask for (scrubbed) examples of forensics reports and expert CVs. You can even request to interview the person who will be testifying about the forensics analysis to get a sense of how he or she might perform during examination. By thoroughly vetting your forensics vendor, in addition to getting the information you need, you will begin to get a sense of how responsive the vendor is and how comfortable you are with them.

  1. Document review – managing costs and litigating effectively

Document review and production can drive up the costs of a litigation significantly. Vendors who are savvy in facilitating large-scale reviews should be able to offer a suite of services designed to help make your document review effective, relatively cost-efficient, and accurate (such as, e.g., predictive coding and AI). Moreover, your vendor should be able to offer early case assessment and help you to select the tools that will help you litigate your case most effectively.

For cases that involve large-scale document reviews, companies should also consider partnering with a vendor that can provide a managed review (i.e., document review that is performed by a team of dedicated contracted reviewers and is supervised by an in-house manager to ensure accuracy and consistency). Partnering with one vendor that can provide smart review tools and a managed review will enable you to streamline and coordinate efforts, likely making review and production a faster and more cost-effective process.

Finally, your vendor should have policies and methodologies in place that are designed to ensure that your production is internally consistent and defensible in court. (And your vendor should be prepared to testify as to its policies and methodologies if needed.)

Accordingly, here are some questions that you might ask your vendor.

  • What review platform(s) do you use?
  • What assistive technology do you offer?
  • Do you offer early case assessment?
  • Can you offer managed review? (If so, is the managed review contracted or in-house? What is the selection process for your managers and reviewers?)
  • Will there be a case manager assigned to my matter to ensure continuity?
  • Do you offer 24-hour and weekend support?
  • If needed, are there individuals at your company who can provide testimony regarding your policies and methodologies?

With respect to review platforms and assistive technology, it’s important to note that some are simply better than others. (A clunky platform or ineffective AI can result in dozens or hundreds of additional wasted billable hours.) And, when it comes to large-scale document reviews, a vendor’s approach to case management is of utmost importance, so it will be important to have a case manager staffed to your matter who you can trust.

  1. Choosing the right partner – seeing is believing

Having an initial conversation with a vendor may tell you about its capabilities, approaches, and experience. Some of the most important qualities, however – responsiveness, speed, accuracy, competence, continuity, and your vendor’s ability to take a proactive role in your matter – can only be determined through experience. Consider trying out a few vendors, and asking others who have worked with them (e.g., outside counsel) about their experience and recommendations.

Hannah T. Joseph and Kyle Vieira, the co-authors of this article, are attorneys with the firm’s litigation group, where they focus their practices on trade secrets law, restrictive covenants, employee mobility, and unfair competition.

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our hand-picked team of lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment, and are recognized as a leading authority in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

 

Russell Beck and Erika Hahn Analyze Noncompete Law in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Russell Beck and Erika Hahn‘s article analyzing how the “new” Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act deals with the issue of consideration was published by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly under the title, “The New Noncompete Law: Compromise Happens.”

The analysis focuses on how the Commonwealth’s noncompete reform law, which went into effect on October 1, 2018, handles the issue of compensating employees for a noncompete that arises after the employee has already started their employment.  The law specifies that such agreements “must be supported by fair and reasonable consideration independent from the continuation of employment,” G.L.c. 149, §24L(b)(ii). This is a requirement that does not exist for a noncompete signed at the start of employment.

For a noncompete entered into at the start of employment, “mutually-agreed upon consideration” is required (or, in the alternative, a garden leave clause).  According to the article,

erika350Reading the two consideration provisions together, the question becomes, if “fair and reasonable consideration” is the standard for consideration for mid-employment noncompetes (when there is a heightened concern for an employee’s leverage), doesn’t that mean that something less than “fair and reasonable consideration” suffices for a noncompete entered at the commencement of employment (when the concern is less pronounced)?

The relative concern giving rise to the requirement of “fair and reasonable consideration” seems to support such a conclusion.

Although the conclusion that something less than “fair and reasonable consideration” is all that is required for a noncompete signed at the start of a new job might seem unfair, that is precisely what the law has always been. Courts do not review the adequacy of consideration, just the fact of it.

Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

***

But, if that is what the Legislature intended, why include the option of garden leave? The unsatisfactory answer is that inclusion of the garden leave option was a necessary compromise to avoid losing all of the progress that had already been made, including notice requirements, a ban on noncompetes for nonexempt employees, a 12-month durational limit, and, of course, the “fair and reasonable consideration” requirement for employees asked to sign a noncompete mid-employment.

The analysis concludes that the new noncompete law may not change the consideration analysis for noncompetes arising out of the start of a new job:

Thus, a new job and associated compensation and rights may be — as it always has been — sufficient consideration under the new noncompete law.

Time will tell if courts will read greater implications into the inclusion of the garden leave option. Until then, as with many other new laws, we will continue to grapple with some uncertainty, while our clients benefit from the many positive aspects of the new law.

For up-to-the-minute analysis of legal issues concerning noncompete agreements in Massachusetts and across the United States, read Russell Beck’s blog, Fair Competition Law.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized; it includes:

  • Over twenty two years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete cases
  • Authoring the book Trade Secrets Law for the Massachusetts Practitioner (1st ed. MCLE 2019), covering trade secrets nationally, with a focus on Massachusetts law
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2019 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell Beck is a “terrific” attorney, who “is an excellent choice of counsel regarding noncompete agreements and the resolution of restrictive covenant disputes.” Chambers noted that Russell “basically wrote the new Massachusetts statute on noncompetes” and that “he’s an expert in employee mobility and nonrestrictive covenants.”

Russell is the focus of the cover story in this year’s New England Super Lawyers, and he was recently named as one of the Lawyers of the Year for 2018 by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

 

New England Super Lawyers Profiles Russell Beck in Cover Story

Russell Beck is the subject of a lengthy profile featured on the cover of this year’s New England Super Lawyers.

The cover story, titled “Steady Under Pressure,” describes highlights from Russell Beck’s career in business litigation, starting with his early fascination with the judicial system and the development of his expertise in noncompete and trade secret law.

The profile introduces Russell, who is the co-founder of Beck Reed Riden LLP, by explaining that he is “a litigator with nearly 30 years of experience representing corporate and individual clients in complex business matters,” and that he “is often tasked with putting a case together with blistering speed.”

The article describes one of Russell’s cases where his computer science degree played a critical role in resolving his client’s dispute:

It was the early days of the commercialized internet, and Beck’s background in computer science was coming into play.

At one point, a tech company that had developed a software product and website allowing users to access stock information in something close to real time. “There was absolutely nothing else like it at the time,” says Beck.

Two of the company’s employees had left suddenly and simultaneously. One was the head software coder, the other the head of sales. They started their own business, and, within a short period of time, had a competitive website up and running.

Even though these former employees hadn’t been bound by noncompete restrictions, Beck’s firm sued for illegally using trade secrets and stolen information to start their own competing enterprise. Beck took the deposition of the software engineer and embarked on a deep dive into his code.

“I went through a number of subroutines in the code he’d written and read one of them out loud into the record. And the name of the code was ‘Stolen Code,’” Beck recalls with a laugh. “I was surprised to find that, but I’m sure he was even more surprised to find a lawyer diving into the specifics of his coding.” The case was settled favorably for Beck’s client.

Beck’s technological aptitude remains a critical component in successfully representing many of his clients, especially as it’s become easier for employees to abscond with privileged information in innovative ways.

The article also describes Russell’s role in the policy and politics of trade secret law and noncompete reform, noting that his “expertise on trade-secret and noncompete matters has ascended to the national stage”:

In 2016, the Obama administration and Treasury Department each released reports that found widespread abuse of noncompete agreements across a wide array of business sectors. As a follow up, the White House formed a working group of more than 30 noncompete experts. Beck was the only private attorney to participate.

Prior to that, Beck helped draft a bill for the Massachusetts legislature concerning the use of noncompetes in his home state. He’d also compiled a first-of-its-kind survey in 2010 detailing the nuances of noncompete laws in all 50 states, which became foundational to both the White House and Treasury Department noncompete reports.

The full article, written by Nick Diulio with photography by Bryce Vickmark, can be accessed here.

eck Reed Riden LLP is among the leading authorities in trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition law, and our experience handling these matters is backed by our extensive employment law and business litigation experience. Our hand-picked team combines attorneys with complementary expertise and practical experience.

The Wall Street Journal featured Beck Reed Riden LLP’s noncompete agreement experience. In 2016, the White House issued a report entitled, “Non-Compete Agreements: Analysis of the Usage, Potential Issues, and State Responses,” relying in part on Beck Reed Riden LLP’s research and analysis, including its 50 State Noncompete Survey.

Russell Beck’s work in this area is well recognized; it includes:

  • Over twenty two years of working on trade secret, noncompete, and unfair competition matters
  • Assisting the Obama White House as part of a small working group to develop President Obama’s Noncompete Call to Action
  • Authoring the book Negotiating, Drafting, and Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements and Related Restrictive Covenants (5th ed., MCLE, Inc. 2015), used by other lawyers to help them with their noncompete cases
  • Authoring the book Trade Secrets Law for the Massachusetts Practitioner (1st ed. MCLE 2019), covering trade secrets nationally, with a focus on Massachusetts law
  • Drafting and advising on legislation for the Massachusetts Legislature to define, codify, and improve noncompetition law
  • Teaching Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants at Boston University School of Law
  • Founding and administrating the award-winning blog, Fair Competition Law
  • Establishing and administrating the Noncompete Lawyers and Trade Secret Protection groups on LinkedIn, with over 1,600 members around the world
  • Founded and chaired the Trade Secret / Noncompete Practice for an AmLaw 100 firm

In addition, Russell was honored for his work in this area of law in the 2019 Chambers USA Guide, which stated that Russell Beck is a “terrific” attorney, who “is an excellent choice of counsel regarding noncompete agreements and the resolution of restrictive covenant disputes.” Chambers noted that Russell “basically wrote the new Massachusetts statute on noncompetes” and that “he’s an expert in employee mobility and nonrestrictive covenants.”

Russell was recently named as one of the Lawyers of the Year for 2018 by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

Beck Reed Riden LLP is Boston’s innovative litigation boutique. Our lawyers have years of experience at large law firms, working with clients ranging from Fortune 500 companies to start-ups and individuals. We focus on business litigation and employment. We are experienced litigators and counselors, helping our clients as business partners to resolve issues and develop strategies that best meet our clients’ legal and business needs – before, during, and after litigation. We’re ready to roll up our sleeves and help you. Read more about us, the types of matters we handle, and what we can do for you here.

1 2 3 22