In the wake of Nieves-Garcia, other cases have come, such as Southernmost Foot and Ankle Specialists, P.A. v. Torregrosa, 891 So. 2d 591 (Fla.3d DCA 2004), Rev. Released, 901 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2005), and Litwinczuk v. Palm Beach Cardiovascular Clinic, L.C., 939 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), in which doctors who were simply trying to care for their patients edited the courts.
In Torregrosa, a medical practice sued a former doctor for violating his restriction. The court found that the employer had “legitimate interests with respect to its patient base, transfer physicians, specific potential and existing patients and patient goodwill,” while concluding that “distance limitations … they were excessive and outdated. 36 The court said that because the doctor had never worked for the employer “under marathon and above Key Largo, he should be allowed to practice as he pleases.” 37 The District Court, referring to Nieves-Garcia, found that the court had duly exercised its discretion by “deviating the domain”. 38 It is significant that the landgericht also accepted the Tribunal`s conclusion that “the public interest in maintaining its staff privileges in both [disputed hospitals] outweighs [the employer`s] interest in imposing its restrictive alliances.” 39 7 1969, the American Bar Association has adopted a code of conduct containing disciplinary rule 2-108 (A) which states that “the lawyer may not be a party to or participate in a partnership contract with another lawyer, which limits a lawyer`s right to exercise the right to exercise the right after the termination of a relationship established by the agreement, unless it is a condition of payment of pension benefits.” See also the ABA 5.6 rule (same). See, in general, Stephen E. Kalish, Covenants Not to Compete and the Legal Profession, 29 St. Louis U. L.J. 423, 429-34 (1985) (with a detailed history of the American Bar Association`s handling of restrictive alliances between lawyers).