- Non-compete and trade secret litigation
- Complex business disputes
- Products liability litigation
- Securities customer complaint litigation
|Contact Info||Telephone: 215 979 1153|
Fax: 215 689 3761
|University ||American University, B.A., cum laude, 1996|
|Law School||Temple University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 1999|
|Admitted||1999, Pennsylvania and New Jersey; Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; Supreme Court of New Jersey; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
•Member, Pennsylvania Bar Association
•Member, Philadelphia Bar Association
|Born||Washington, D.C., April 2, 1974|
Lawrence H. Pockers represents clients nationally in complex commercial litigation with a primary focus on non-compete, trade secrets and unfair competition cases. Mr. Pockers represents a number of large clients in these cases across the country. Among the decisions in this area of the law in which he was lead trial counsel are the following: The Valspar Corporation v. Van Kuren, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111862 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2012) (enjoining former employee who had no non-compete or other post-employment restrictive covenant from taking a competitive position, on the grounds that he was substantially likely to misappropriate the former employer's trade secrets in his competitive position -- only the second U.S. District Court decision (the celebrated Bimbo Bakeries case being the first) decided under Pennsylvania law enjoining a former employee who had no non-compete or other post-employment restrictive covenant from taking a competitive position); Missett v. HUB International of Pennsylvania, LLC, 6 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (key and oft-cited Pennsylvania decision standing for the proposition that the fact an employee was terminated cannot form the sole basis for a court's refusal to enforce a post-employment restrictive covenant; after declaratory judgment obtained in trial court was reversed by Superior Court, on remand the Court granted summary judgment in favor of client employee); IKON Office Solutions, Inc. v. Dale, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22855 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming preliminary injunction issued by trial court enjoining former employees and the competitive business they started from competing in violation of sale-of-business covenant not to compete).
Mr. Pockers is also the founder and lead editor of the Duane Morris Non-Compete and Trade Secrets blog.
Mr. Pockers also has significant experience handling a variety of other types of complex commercial cases, including real estate and other business disputes, securities litigation with an emphasis on disputes between customers and broker/dealers and/or registered representatives, litigation involving the licensing and implementation of software, and mass tort products liability litigation. He has tried more than 30 cases in federal, state and arbitration forums.
In 2012, Mr. Pockers was selected by the Philadelphia Business Journal as one of its 40 Under 40 honorees. The 40 Under 40 award recognizes young professionals in the Philadelphia region for outstanding success and contributions to their community. Mr. Pockers was also selected in 2011 and 2012 as a Pennsylvania Rising Star in the area of Business Litigation by Super Lawyers, a publication of Thomson Reuters, and in 2013 he was recognized as a Super Lawyer in the area of Business Litigation.
Mr. Pockers is very active in the community. He is Chairman of the Board of Directors for the American Red Cross, Penn-Jersey Blood Services Region. He is also the immediate past Executive Chairman for the American Red Cross, Penn-Jersey Region's Center City Legal Initiative. Mr. Pockers is also an officer of the Alumni Board of his alma mater, American University. Mr. Pockers serves on the Volunteer Committee for the Support Center for Child Advocates and regularly handles pro bono matters for that organization, which selected him as a Distinguished Advocate in 2013. Mr. Pockers also coaches Little League baseball in Lower Merion Township.
Mr. Pockers is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He also is admitted to practice in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. He is a 1999 magna cum laude graduate of Temple University School of Law, where he was a member of the Temple Law Review and a member of the National Trial Team, which defeated more than 200 law schools to win the 1998 Association of Trial Lawyers of America Trial Tournament. Mr. Pockers also graduated with honors from American University.
•Duane Morris LLP
- Partner, 2008-present
- Associate, 1999-2007
Honors & Awards
•Selected by the Support Center for Child Advocates as a Distinguished Advocate for 2013
•Named a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, 2013-2014
•Pennsylvania Rising Star, 2011-2012
Civic and Charitable Activities
•Executive Chairman, Center City Legal Initiative for American Red Cross, Penn-Jersey Region
•Chair, Board of Directors, American Red Cross, Penn-Jersey Region
•Member, American University Alumni Board
•Member, Volunteer Committee, Support Center for Child Advocates
• The Continuing Split of Authority in the Interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Duane Morris Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law Blog, May 20, 2013
• Massachusetts Proposed Legislation Limiting Employee Non-Compete Agreements, Duane Morris Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law Blog, February 26, 2013
• Latest Hope for U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh in on Circuit Split Over Scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Dashed, Duane Morris Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law Blog, February 4, 2013
• What To Do When Your Sales Manager Asks: 'Can we hire this guy, he has a non-compete with a competitor?', Duane Morris Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law Blog, January 24, 2013
• Tips for Minimizing Attorney’s Fees in Non-Compete/Trade Secret Cases, Duane Morris Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law Blog, January 17, 2013
• The New Duane Morris Non-Compete and Trade Secrets Blog (And Why You Should Read THIS Blog), Duane Morris Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Law Blog, January 9, 2013
|Reported Cases||Representative Matters: Obtained order denying motion for preliminary injunction, after three day hearing, in case involving claims that former employee/sales representative had breached the terms of a non-competition agreement with the vendor-finance company for which he was formerly employed; Obtained on behalf of The Valspar Company an injunction prohibiting the former Technical Manager of its Beverage Ends packaging coatings group from working for a competitor, despite the fact that there was no non-competition agreement or other post-employment restrictive covenant prohibiting him from working for a direct competitor, on the grounds that there was a substantial likelihood that he would disclose trade secrets if permitted to work for the competitor. The Valspar Corporation v. Van Kuren, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111862 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2012); Secured a declaratory judgment for client in a non-compete case involving the former employee of an insurance broker, then prevailed on summary judgment on remand after Superior Court remanded for further proceedings. Missett v. HUB International of Pennsylvania, LLC, 6 A.3d 530 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010); Obtained an arbitration award, following an eight-day arbitration hearing in Philadelphia, on behalf of an insurance company against a computer services vendor, which had sought $3.75 million in damages in connection with a claim for breach of contract relating to the license and implementation of insurance policy and claims modules, denying the computer services vendor's claim in its entirety and awarding the insurance company client all of its out of pocket expenses associated with the failed implementation; Successfully defeated three Motions for Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction for enforcement of restrictive covenants in an employment agreement, as sought by a former employer against a senior sales manager who had resigned from the company and joined a competitor; Represent several national and multinational companies in industries ranging from medical devices to aluminum can coatings to office solutions on matters involving enforcement, and defending against the enforcement of, agreements containing non-competition, non-solicitation of customers, non-solicitation of employees and/or non-disclosure of trade secrets covenants; Have tried injunction hearings in more than 25 different forums across the country, and have litigated non-compete and/or trade secrets cases in more than 40 states; Obtained temporary restraining order against former employees of office products and services company and the new competitor they formed prohibiting former employees and their company from competing for any customers serviced by former employees; Obtained temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against former employee of online advertiser preventing employee from working for competitor in competitive job function; Successfully tried 16-day arbitration hearing in dispute involving breach of distribution contracts involving paintball products before International Centre for Dispute Resolution. Following hearings, arbitration panel awarded firm's client nearly $16 million; Successfully defended advertising company in lawsuit brought by local newspaper seeking injunctive relief. Argued motion for temporary restraining order before Chief Judge of Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who following argument denied newspaper's motion. Case settled thereafter on terms favorable to client; Successfully argued appeal before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in case involving alleged breach by trustee of fiduciary duties, after obtaining dismissal of case by District Court. District Court's Order dismissing case was affirmed on appeal; Successfully represented local broker in arbitration case brought by broker's former customer alleging breach of fiduciary duties and fraud. Prior to arbitration hearing, negotiated take nothing settlement after obtaining sanctions against attorney for claimants' counsel for discovery abuses.|
|Profile Visibility |
|#1,560 in weekly profile views out of 15,781 lawyers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|
|#133,404 in weekly profile views out of 1,587,858 total lawyers Overall|