In Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171, 1999-Ohio-260, a former associate of a law firm took client lists upon her departure. Although the representation contracts were found to be terminable at will, the court held that issues of fact remained as to whether the attorney and her new law firm acquired Fred Siegel client information by improper means and whether fee information was improperly disclosed. Id. at 180. In Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden, 85 Ohio St.3d 171, 1999 Ohio 260, 707 N.E.2d 853, , the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, Section 767, which sets forth the following factors to consider in determining whether an actor has acted improperly in intentionally interfering with a contract or prospective contract of another; such factors include: (a) the nature of the actor's conduct; (b) the actor's motive; (c) the interests of the other with which the actor's conduct interferes; (d) the interests sought to be advanced by the actor; (e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other; (f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor's conduct to the interference; (g) the relations between the parties." Id. at 178-179.