In a dispute involving a covenant not to compete, the Court of Appeals of the State of Michigan, on March 24, 2009, decided that the covenant not to compete contained in the employment contract for Dr. William G. Stahl, III ("plaintiff"), with U.P. Digestive Disease Associates, P.C. ("defendant"), was not enforceable.

The covenant not to compete in his two year employment contract read:

Covenant Not to Compete. PHYSICIAN pledges active and industrious performance of duties in the CORPORATION’S best interests. To that end, if PHYSICIAN separates from employment service with the CORPORATION, PHYSICIAN shall not compete with CORPORATION within 150 miles of the City of Marquette for a period of two (2) years after such separation, unless the terms of such competition have been agreed to in writing by the Board of Directors of the CORPORATION, acting by the remaining Stockholders.

I saw a recent quote by Mark Cooney, an Associate Professor at The Thomas M. Cooley Law School that dealt with the use of plain language. It brought to mind an article entitled "Legalese and the Myth of Case Precedent" of which I was one of the authors. It appeared in the October 1985 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal. It examined the use of “legalese” in an Offer to Purchase Real Estate and argued for the use of plain language. Mr. Cooney said: "The utilization of inflated language characterized by exceptional verbosity is not the most efficacious methodology for accomplishing the communication of sophisticated ideas. To sound smart, make it simple."

On February 17, 2009, I will be participating as a faculty member for a seminar entitled "Top 10 Estate Planning Techniques" sponsored by National Business Institute. My presentations will be on the use of "Revocable Living Trusts" and "Gifting Strategies Including Annual Exclusion Gifts." Further information is available on the web.