Axley Client Retention — Egan Poaching Legal Situation

Overview

Former partner Egan (of Egan Silver Elite Marketing) is actively soliciting the Axley client away from the agency in direct violation of a two-year payout agreement that explicitly prohibits poaching clients or interfering with the agency's business. The Axley client has indicated intent to move to Egan Silver Elite Marketing. Legal action is imminent.

This situation surfaced during the ^[1].

Background

Egan departed the agency under a negotiated agreement that includes a two-year payout from the agency to Egan.
As a condition of that agreement, Egan is legally barred from poaching agency clients or interfering with the agency's business relationships.
Despite this, Egan has directly solicited the Axley client, who communicated intent to move to Egan Silver Elite Marketing.
The agency sent a "screamer" email to Egan's lawyer the same morning, threatening both civil and criminal charges.

Legal Position

The agency's position is strong:

Breach of contract — The non-poaching clause is part of a signed payout agreement. Egan is receiving ongoing payments under this agreement while violating its terms.
Court injunction — The agency intends to seek a court order forbidding Egan from performing work with any current agency accounts. If granted, the Axley client would be legally blocked from engaging Egan regardless of their preference.
Leverage — Because Egan is still being paid out, his violation is particularly egregious and the agency's legal standing is clear.

Client Retention Strategy

Rather than burning the relationship with the Axley client, the recommended approach is a direct, informational phone call from Sebastian to the client contact. The goal is to protect the client from getting caught in the legal dispute, not to threaten them.

Talking Points for the Call

We have a payout agreement with Egan that includes a non-poaching clause — he is legally prohibited from taking our clients.
We are pursuing legal action against Egan for this violation.
A court order will likely be issued forbidding Egan from working with our accounts, which would leave the client without an agency mid-transition.
The safest path for the client is to stay put for the next few months while the legal situation resolves.
If, once the dust settles, they still want to make a change, that's their prerogative — but doing so now carries real risk of disruption.

Tone

Preserve the relationship. Sebastian has a strong personal rapport with the Axley contact.
Frame it as looking out for the client's interests, not as a threat.
Do not burn bridges — the goal is retention, not punishment.

Action Items

[ ] Sebastian — Call the Axley client to explain the legal situation and advise them to stay with the agency until litigation resolves. Forward the client's response email to Mark. (Source: meeting 2026-02-19)
[ ] Mark / Legal — Continue pursuing civil and criminal action against Egan through his attorney. Seek court injunction blocking Egan from working with agency accounts.

Open Questions

Will Egan's attorney respond to the demand letter, and on what timeline?
Does the Axley client have a signed contract with the agency that has a remaining term, providing additional grounds for retention?
Are there other clients Egan may be approaching?

^[1] — meeting where this situation was disclosed
^[2] — client record
^[3] — general policy context (if exists)