Principals risk being put ‘over a barrel’ by ex-employees

property/superannuation-fund/

3 October 2008
| By By John Wilkinson |

Financial planning principals should include restrictions on using client lists out­side the practice in employment contracts, a lawyer has warned.

You give somebody a desk when they work for you, but you don’t expect them to take it when they leave,” Perth-based lawyer Brett Davies said.

“So why should a planner take the client list with them when they leave?” Davies said he was not advocating that planners not change jobs or be restricted in where they work.

“Restraint of trade is unreasonable when a planner leaves and won’t stand up in law,” he said. “But the law does recognise an up-to-date employment contract that clarifies what property belongs to the practice.”

Davies said restrictions on an employee damag­ing their employer’s trade were enshrined in English law more than 200 years ago by Lord Kenyon. Kenyon said in a 1799 case: “A servant, while engaged in the service of his master, has no right to do any act which may injure his trade or under­mine his business, but everyone has a right, if he can, to better his situation in the world.”

Davies said this allows a planner to set up a busi­ness in competition with a previous employer, but not with information that belongs to the employer.

The solution to the problem is to restrict the use of information, such as client lists, business operations and ways of dealing with suppliers, in an employment contract.

“You should identify how confidential infor­mation, such as client lists, are protected from misuse in the planner’s employment contract, then protect the modus operandi of the practice, such as Coca-Cola pro­tecting the formula of its drink.”

Davies said ways of dealing with suppliers covered such areas as pro­viding planning services to a superannuation fund.

“It is the way the prac­tice deals with that sup­plier of clients, as the leav­ing planner could contact the trustees and ask them to recommend their serv­ices instead,” he said.

“An employment con­tract is the only line of defence.”

Unfortunately, it is hard to get established employ­ees to sign a new employ­ment contract with such restrictions included in the document, Davies said.

“You have to get employees to sign an employment contract detailing these points on day one of their employ­ment,” he said.

“Any later and the employee has the princi­pal over a barrel.”

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest news and developments in wealth management industry

MARKET INSIGHTS

So we are now underwriting criminal scams?...

2 months ago

Glad to see the back of you Steve. You made financial more expensive, not more affordable as you claim, and presided ...

2 months ago

Completely agree Peter. The definition of 'significant change is circumstances relevant to the scope of the advice' is s...

4 months 1 week ago

A Sydney financial adviser has been permanently banned from providing any financial services, with the regulator deriding his “lack of integrity, trustworthiness and prof...

3 weeks 2 days ago

Minister for Financial Services, Stephen Jones, has provided further information about the second tranche of the Delivering Better Financial Outcomes (DBFO) reforms....

2 weeks 1 day ago

One licensee has lost 27 advisers in the past week, now sitting at zero, according to the latest Wealth Data figures....

3 weeks 2 days ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS