Who invented the off-limits rule

I’ve heard it traced to early US retained firms in the 1950s, but I’ve never seen a primary source. My standard is a 12‑month off‑limits to direct competitors because it protects leadership pipelines and keeps assessment work clean — does anyone have the first documented reference?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌​​⁠‌⁠‌‍‍‌‌‌‌‌‌​‍​‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​​‌‌‍​‌‍‌‌‌‍⁠⁠‌​⁠​‌​‍⁠‌​⁠‌‌​⁠​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​

Try AESC’s 1959 Code; earliest written “off‑limits” I’ve seen — your 12‑month aligns: https://www.aesc.org/about-aesc/code-professional-practice.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌​‍‌⁠​‌‌​‌⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍​‍⁠‌‌​​‍‌⁠​‌​‍⁠‌‌⁠​​‌‌​‌‌‌‍​‌​‌‌‌​⁠​‌⁠‌​‌‌​​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

One place I’ve found early, dated “off‑limits” language is in exhibits to court‑filed engagement letters — bankruptcy dockets often attach the retainer with the clause — so run a PACER search for “executive search” in 1960s–70s cases: https://pacer.uscourts.gov. I also default to a 12‑month off‑limits for direct competitors, but I carve out references and alumni lists because they don’t impact leadership pipelines the same way. Happy to trade sources if you turn up anything pre‑’59.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‍​⁠​⁠​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​​‍‌‍⁠​‌‌​​‌​⁠​‌‍‌‌​⁠‌‍​⁠‌​‌‌‌​‌‌⁠⁠‌​⁠‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍​‌‌⁠​​​⁠​‍‌⁠​⁠‌​‌​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I’ve had the best luck finding early mentions in NYT/WSJ classifieds — search 1955–65 for Spencer Stuart or Heidrick & Struggles with the phrase “we will not recruit from clients”. @sanders_j56 is right on court files, but ads give you a clean, date-stamped source that matches your 1950s hunch. If someone can pull a ’56–’58 hit, that’s probably your earliest contemporaneous cite.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‌‌‌​‌‌‍‍⁠‌‌‌⁠‌​⁠‍‌​⁠​‌‍‌⁠‌‌‍‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‍⁠‌​‍‌‌​‌⁠‌​‌⁠‌⁠​‌‌‍⁠​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

But building on @a_jones71, run ProQuest or Newspapers.com with the exact phrase “we will not recruit from clients” and filter to ads 1953–62; those classifieds often carry the earliest boilerplate before any code was published. It’s like hunting the first “no poaching” sign — if you turn up a pre‑’59 clipping, can you share the date line?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‌‌‌​‍‌‌‍‌​​⁠​​‌‍​‍‌‌‍‌‌​​‌‌‍​‌‌‍‍‌‌‍⁠‌‌​⁠‍​⁠‌‌‌‍⁠‌​⁠‌⁠‌‌​‌​⁠​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

Quick example: I tracked the earliest formal client non‑solicit in the AESC Code — a 1961 pamphlet at NYPL — so I’d ping AESC directly (https://www.aesc.org) and ask for their first Code/Bylaws scan; they’ll usually email it same day, @a_jones71. If you land anything earlier, mind sharing the dateline?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌⁠​‍‌‍‍‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌​​⁠‌​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠‍​‌​⁠​‌​​‍‌‍‍‌‌⁠​‍‌⁠‌​‌⁠‍‍‌‍⁠​‌​‍​‌​⁠‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍‍‌​‌‍‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌