Shilling

Moss, Adams & Co. v. Shilling

Good Law
179 Cal. App. 3d 124·1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1380·224 Cal. Rptr. 456
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1986A029164California1,944 words

Opinion

Opinion

King, J.

In this case we hold that professional employees of an accounting firm, as a matter of law, did not engage in unfair competition when they used a company rolodex to obtain the addresses of clients of the firm for whom they had provided professional services, in order to mail those clients an announcement of their formation of a new accounting partnership. The mailing of such an announcement does not constitute solicitation and therefore is not unfair competition.

On appeal from a final judgment Moss, Adams & Company (hereafter Moss Adams) challenges a summary adjudication order in favor of John D. Shilling, Cynthia L. Kenyon, and Shilling, Kenyon & Company (hereafter Shilling and Kenyon). We affirm the judgment.

Shilling and Kenyon were managerial employees of Moss Adams, an accounting firm with offices in four western states. Both signed employment agreements stating that the names and addresses of Moss Adams’ clients were trade secrets and could not be used to solicit those clients during employment or within one year thereafter.

In 1982, Shilling and Kenyon decided to form their own accounting firm. Two weeks before they submitted resignation letters to Moss Adams,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.