Restrictions on a lawyer’s practice after a partner leaves are allowed only under limited, reasonable conditions.

Title: When can a law firm say “stay put” after a partner leaves? A clear look at post-departure restraints

If you’ve seen a MPRE-style question pop up, you know the energy in those ethics sections can feel a little, well, prickly. They love to test the tension between keeping a firm’s hard-won client relationships safe and letting lawyers move freely in the market. Here’s a bite-sized breakdown of one tricky topic: restrictions on how lawyers can work after leaving a firm. Spoiler alert: the right answer hinges on reasonableness and timing, not a blanket rule.

Let me explain the gist in plain terms. After someone who’s been a partner or a long-time associate exits a firm, can the firm tell them they can’t work with certain clients, or even forbid them from taking on similar kinds of work in a wide area? The truth, in most ethics frameworks, isn’t a free-for-all. It’s more a measured, targeted restraint—one that’s tied to legitimate business interests and limited in scope and time. The moral of the story: restrictions aren’t free-floating powers that a firm can wave at will; they’re duties that must be carefully justified.

Let’s walk through the typical multiple-choice idea you’ll see on a mock question, and why one answer is the most accurate.

Option A: Non-compete clauses are always allowed

This one sounds confident, but it’s not how ethics rules usually read. Non-compete provisions that lock someone out of practicing in any area for any length of time are often treated with skepticism or even disallowed in many places. The general rule is that restrictions must be reasonable and narrowly tailored to protect specific interests—like client relationships or confidential information—not broad attempts to cap a former partner’s career. So, this option is a red herring. It’s not a blanket “always allowed” rule.

Option B: A lawyer can restrict work as part of a settlement

This one has a kernel of truth but needs context. Settlements can include restraints, but they must still pass the test of reasonableness and relevance. It isn’t a carte blanche power to restrict anyone in any circumstance. A settlement might include an agreement that protects legitimate business interests after a dispute, yet the restraint should still be carefully drawn—time-bound, geographically limited, and necessary to protect actual relationships or confidential information. So this option isn’t universally correct; it depends on how the restraint is crafted.

Option C: Restrictions are not allowed unless a partner withdraws or retires

This is the one that aligns with the standard approach many ethics frameworks take. The idea is that a firm can impose reasonable restraints on a lawyer’s post-departure work, but only when the relationship ends in retirement or withdrawal. After a partner leaves, the firm might have a legitimate interest in preserving client relationships that developed during the partnership, or in safeguarding confidential information. That interest can justify a narrowly tailored restraint, but it must not be overly broad or open-ended. When a partner remains with the firm or when the relationship ends for reasons other than retirement or withdrawal, the justification for such restraints becomes murkier. So, as a general rule, this option captures the core principle: post-employment restrictions are more defensible in the context of retirement or withdrawal, and they must be reasonable.

Option D: Restrictions on work can be imposed by any firm

This one overreaches. Not every firm can impose restrictions arbitrarily, and not every restraint is enforceable. The ability to impose limits depends on the specific relationship, the jurisdiction, and whether the restraint meaningfully protects legitimate interests without unduly suppressing a lawyer’s ability to earn a living. So this is not correct as a blanket rule.

Putting it together: the correct guardrails lie in reasonableness, purpose, and timing. The heart of the matter is that post-departure restraints aren’t about punishing a lawyer for leaving or—heaven forbid—restricting a career for the sake of control. They’re about safeguarding real, tangible business interests—like client relationships that the firm helped cultivate and confidential information that deserves protection. But those restraints must be carefully drawn: a brief duration, a limited geographic scope, and a direct link to protecting those interests. When you keep those elements in mind, the ethically sound stance becomes clearer.

A closer look at the rule in practical terms

Think of it this way: a firm’s concerns aren’t silly. Clients often stay with the people they know, and the relationships built inside a partnership can be valuable long after someone leaves. But a blanket ban on any similar line of work, everywhere, forever, would freeze a former lawyer out of the market. That’s not how these ethics rules are intended to work. Reasonable restraints can be acceptable if they are tied to legitimate business purposes—protecting client relationships and preserving confidential information—rather than to punish a departure or stifle competition.

Policy nuance matters, too. Different jurisdictions may phrase the principles a bit differently, and the exact test for “reasonableness” can shift. Some places require that the restraint be tailored to the specific client relationships at stake, or that the restriction only applies to the same line of work that existed within the firm. Others may demand a shorter timeframe or a tighter geographic limit. The point is not to guess at a universal standard but to recognize the core balance: protect real business interests without throttling a lawyer’s ability to earn a living.

A few real-world reflections (with a touch of everyday life)

• Imagine a boutique firm that built a reputation around work with a small set of long-time clients. If one partner leaves, there’s a credible risk those clients might follow. A sensible, temporary restraint focused on those particular clients and this particular line of work could be reasonable. It’s not about blocking opportunity; it’s about preventing abrupt, disruptive disruption to client relationships.

• Now picture a huge firm with a sprawling client base and lots of overlapping specialties. The same logic applies, but the scope must be carefully calibrated. The larger the client network and the broader the practice areas, the more cautious the restraint needs to be—less risk of undue burden on the former attorney, more chance of staying within ethical bounds.

A quick, digestible takeaway for the MPRE mind

• Post-departure restraints are not a free pass for firms to clamp down on every departing lawyer. They’re a tool, usable only when they’re reasonable and tied to legitimate business interests.

• The timing matters: restraints tied to retirement or withdrawal are more defensible than broad, post-employment limitations that last for years or cover wide geographies.

• Non-compete-esque rules aren’t automatically lawful in every jurisdiction. They’ll be scrutinized for breadth and necessity.

• Settlements can feature restraints, but they must pass the same reasonableness test; a cleverly drafted constraint that protects client relationships without strangling a lawyer’s livelihood is the aim.

A few practical guidelines you can carry into exam-style questions

• Look for the connection to legitimate interests: client relationships, confidential information, or the firm’s goodwill. If there’s no clear link, the restraint will likely fail the reasonableness test.

• Check the scope: is the time frame reasonable? Is the geographic area appropriately narrow? Are the restrained activities precisely defined?

• Remember the timing: restraints tied to retirement or withdrawal are more defensible than those imposed for mere post-employment periods.

• Be mindful of jurisdictional differences: rules vary, and a correct answer in one state might be treated differently in another. If the question invites you to pick the most universally correct option, aim for the one that emphasizes retirement/withdrawal with a narrow scope.

Why this matters beyond a multiple-choice item

Ethical rules aren’t just trivia for a test. They shape how lawyers move between firms, how they preserve the trust clients place in them, and how firms protect sensitive information. The nuanced stance on post-departure restraints helps ensure that legal professionals can switch roles without helping firms lock others out of the market entirely. That balance keeps the profession dynamic while still safeguarding those client relationships and confidences that matter most.

If you’re navigating MPRE content, keep circling back to the core idea: any restriction should be reasonable, tied to a legitimate business aim, and limited in time and scope. The moment you drift into broad, indefinite, or unfounded restrictions, you’re likely stepping out of ethical bounds.

A final thought to carry forward

Ethics in the law world often feels like walking a tightrope. You want to protect the big, valuable things—client trust and firm assets—without shutting down a fellow lawyer’s ability to work and grow. The right answer to the kind of question we started with captures that balance: post-departure restraints are permissible, but only when a partner withdraws or retires, and even then only if the restriction is reasonable and clearly tied to legitimate business interests.

If this topic sparked a moment of clarity, great. Ethics questions benefit from a calm, practical lens—one that treats client relationships and professional liberties as two sides of the same coin. And if you’re ever unsure, remember the two guardrails: reasonableness and timing. They’re your best friends when the exam corners you with tricky wordings and tight hypotheticals.

Want more bite-sized explanations like this one? I’ll keep breaking down the ethical corridors, one clear, human-centered note at a time, so these concepts stay vivid long after you close the book.