Opinion

Letters to the Editor

  •  | 
Print this page

Add another category to the Legal Elite
To the Editor,
I enjoyed reading the December 2011 issue of Virginia Business, featuring the 2011 Virginia Legal Elite.  I noted that a new category of “appellate law” has been, resulting in 16 legal categories of recognition.
I suggest a 17th category, that of elder law.  This is a growth practice, both in the number of legal experts in the field and in the demand for these services.  We see this growing demand every day at the Alzheimer’s Association.
Therefore, I urge you and your good colleagues to add the category of elder law for the 2012 Virginia Legal Elite issue.

Thank you. 

Sue Friedman,
President/CEO, Alzheimer’s Association, Central and Western Virginia Chapter
Charlottesville

Editor’s note: Elder care attorneys were included under the tax, estates, trusts and elder care category.


Clarifications to noncompete contract story in February issue
In a story about noncompete agreements in the February issue, Virginia Business discussed a recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling that found the noncompete provisions of a pest control company’s employment contract to be too broad.

Virginia Business incorrectly reported that, while the Supreme Court had upheld the contract of a predecessor of Home Paramount Pest Control in a 1989 case, the Court had ruled on the language in the contract multiple times since 1990.  In fact, the Court had not ruled on the exact language of the contract since the first Paramount case.  In the intervening years, the Court decided other cases in which the legal analysis of non-compete agreements evolved. 

In analyzing his legal strategy, the story said Home Paramount’s attorney, Zachary Kitts, “recognized that Home Paramount’s employment contract was out of date and that ‘the odds were remote’ that his client would win its case.”  The words “out of date” are those of the author, not the attorney. The Supreme Court opinion points out the relevant language in the 2011 case was the same language upheld in the 1989 case. Kitts takes issue with the wording, asserting that it misled many readers to believe he was saying that his client’s noncompete clause was out of date.


Reader Comments

comments powered by Disqus


showhide shortcuts