With the Dog Days of late summer upon us, I have three fine articles to distract you--all suggesting that we must use yet more care when drafting and litigating Georgia restrictive covenants. First, Matt Maguire, Tony Cochran, and John Larkins dive deeply into the myriad issues around physician restrictions, before and since the Restrictive Covenants Act, concluding that now more than ever Georgia courts are likely to enforce these promises. Second, Ben Fink and Amy Dehnel look at how a seemingly straightforward holding, the Georgia Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Holton v. Physician Oncology Services rejecting the inevitable-disclosure doctrine, is more nuanced and raises more questions than we imagined. Finally, Neal Weinrich wonders how the Supreme Court's 2013 pro-arbitration opinion in Nitro-Lift Technologies affects two key Georgia appellate cases holding that, when a party seeks injunctive relief in court, that court may also address the restrictive-covenant claims, even if an arbitration agreement requires a different forum. Yes, you would rather be adrift on water with cool drink in hand than thinking about all this. But trust me: soaking up these articles will ensure that you sleep better at night. Enjoy what's left of your summer.

In This Issue