<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Making Connections, Managing Risk in Startup Deals: A Visit to Boston Law Firm Mintz Levin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/08/25/making-connections-managing-risk-in-startup-deals-a-visit-to-boston-law-firm-mintz-levin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/08/25/making-connections-managing-risk-in-startup-deals-a-visit-to-boston-law-firm-mintz-levin/</link>
	<description>Business + Technology in the Exponential Economy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:14:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wade Roush</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/08/25/making-connections-managing-risk-in-startup-deals-a-visit-to-boston-law-firm-mintz-levin/comment-page-1/#comment-77667</link>
		<dc:creator>Wade Roush</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=38814#comment-77667</guid>
		<description>Scott, thanks for the comment. I see where you&#039;re coming from, but I also think it&#039;s too easy to cynically dismiss every note of resistance to the idea of non-compete reform as the product of rank self-interest.

Also, I&#039;m not even sure the self-interest argument holds much water in this case. It appears to me that Mintz and the other firms have more than enough work to keep them busy without having to represent clients in employment contract cases--witness the growth of Mintz&#039;s practice in San Diego, and the long list of other successful California venture law firms like Wilson Sonsini.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scott, thanks for the comment. I see where you’re coming from, but I also think it’s too easy to cynically dismiss every note of resistance to the idea of non-compete reform as the product of rank self-interest.</p>
<p>Also, I’m not even sure the self-interest argument holds much water in this case. It appears to me that Mintz and the other firms have more than enough work to keep them busy without having to represent clients in employment contract cases–witness the growth of Mintz’s practice in San Diego, and the long list of other successful California venture law firms like Wilson Sonsini.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Kirsner</title>
		<link>http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2009/08/25/making-connections-managing-risk-in-startup-deals-a-visit-to-boston-law-firm-mintz-levin/comment-page-1/#comment-77506</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Kirsner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.xconomy.com/?p=38814#comment-77506</guid>
		<description>Wade -

I always feel that when attorneys jabber on about non-compete agreements and how they are so essential to the culture here, they ought to disclose that attorneys are &lt;B&gt;not subject to them.&lt;/B&gt; They&#039;re free to leave Mintz today and go work at Nixon Peabody tomorrow. (This is part of the attorney&#039;s code of conduct, not a state law...although Massachusetts law does exempt doctors, nurses, social workers, and, oddly, TV and radio broadcasters from being bound by non-compete agreements.)

But while attorneys aren&#039;t restricted by non-competes, they do get to bill plenty of hours representing plaintiffs and defendants in these cases.

One reason you never hear attorneys arguing to change the status quo with regard to non-competes is that it works wonderfully -- for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wade -</p>
<p>I always feel that when attorneys jabber on about non-compete agreements and how they are so essential to the culture here, they ought to disclose that attorneys are <b>not subject to them.</b> They’re free to leave Mintz today and go work at Nixon Peabody tomorrow. (This is part of the attorney’s code of conduct, not a state law…although Massachusetts law does exempt doctors, nurses, social workers, and, oddly, TV and radio broadcasters from being bound by non-compete agreements.)</p>
<p>But while attorneys aren’t restricted by non-competes, they do get to bill plenty of hours representing plaintiffs and defendants in these cases.</p>
<p>One reason you never hear attorneys arguing to change the status quo with regard to non-competes is that it works wonderfully — for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

