In Jacob v. Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, 128 N.J. 10, 607 A.2d 142 (1992), the New Jersey Supreme Court, in a celebrated case, declared against public policy a contractual provision prohibiting departing lawyers from soliciting other professional and paraprofessional employees of the law firm to engage in the practice of law with the departing member. Id. 128 N.J. at 31-32, 607 A.2d at 152-54. In that case, the court also focused, not so much on the right of the departing partner who signed the restrictive anti-raiding provision, but on what it considered an undue constriction of "the right to practice of those attorneys who would have liked to have accompanied a departing lawyer, but who were not informed of that partner's interest due to an agreement creating a disincentive against their being contacted." Id. 128 N.J. at 31, 607 A.2d at 153 (adding: "The effect is all the more objectionable when the ignored attorney is an associate who is not a party to the agreement establishing the restriction.") Fully embracing ABA Inf. Op. 1417, and a similar opinion of the Legal Ethics Committee of the District of Columbia Bar, District of Columbia Bar Association Op. 181 (1987), the court "concluded that the unrestricted practice of law' includes the right to solicit both attorneys and those members of the paraprofessional staff that attorneys believe are necessary to provide the best legal service for their clients." Id. 128 N.J. at 31-32, 607 A.2d at 153. The court continued that, as a general matter, "we believe that discouraging solicitation still constitutes an improper interference with the practice of law." Id. 128 N.J. at 32, 607 A.2d at 153.