Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

BDO SEIDMAN v. HIRSHBERG Case Brief

Court of Appeals of the State of New York1999
93 N.Y.2d 382 712 N.E.2d 1220 690 N.Y.S.2d 854

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: An accounting firm sued a former employee to enforce a reimbursement clause for serving firm clients. The court found the clause overbroad but, instead of voiding it, partially enforced it to protect the firm’s legitimate interests, remanding on the issue of liquidated damages.

Legal Significance: Establishes that New York courts will partially enforce overbroad employee restrictive covenants if the employer acted in good faith. It narrowly defines an employer’s legitimate protectable interest as client relationships cultivated through the employer’s resources, not the entire client base or the employee’s personal clients.

BDO SEIDMAN v. HIRSHBERG Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

BDO Seidman (BDO), a national accounting firm, required defendant Jeffrey Hirshberg to sign a “Manager’s Agreement” as a condition of promotion. The agreement contained a clause requiring that if Hirshberg left the firm, he must compensate BDO for any of its Buffalo office’s clients he served within 18 months of his departure. The specified compensation was 1.5 times the fees BDO had charged that client in the last fiscal year. After resigning, Hirshberg began serving approximately 100 of BDO’s former clients. BDO sued to enforce the clause. Hirshberg contended that the covenant was overbroad, as many of these clients were personal clients he had brought to the firm or clients with whom he had no significant contact while employed at BDO. The trial court and Appellate Division found the clause to be an unenforceable anti-competitive agreement and granted summary judgment to Hirshberg. BDO appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can a court partially enforce an overbroad restrictive covenant in an employment agreement that requires a former employee to compensate the employer for servicing any of the employer’s clients, including those with whom the employee had no prior contact or who were the employee’s personal clients?

Yes. The restrictive covenant is overbroad but can be partially enforced. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse c

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Can a court partially enforce an overbroad restrictive covenant in an employment agreement that requires a former employee to compensate the employer for servicing any of the employer’s clients, including those with whom the employee had no prior contact or who were the employee’s personal clients?

Conclusion

This case solidifies New York's adoption of a flexible, good-faith standard for Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni

Legal Rule

A restrictive covenant in an employment agreement is enforceable only to the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim

Legal Analysis

The court applied the three-pronged common-law test for the reasonableness of restrictive Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolo

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A restrictive covenant is overbroad if it covers clients the employee
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolor

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More