the restrictive covenant was an overbroad, unreasonable restraint of trade since it not only prohibited Fine from soliciting CTI’s clients, but also prohibited her from “otherwise” communicating with the former clients to accept business, without solicitation and regardless of who initiated the contact. We agree. “While a prohibition involving some affirmative act on the part of the former employee, such as solicitation, diversion, or contact of clients, may be reasonable, a covenant prohibiting a former employee from merely accepting business, without any solicitation, is not reasonable.” (Footnotes and emphasis omitted.) Waldeck v. Curtis 1000, Inc., 261 Ga. App. 590, 592 (583 SE2d 266) (2003). See also Singer v. Habif Arogeti & Wynne, PC., 250 Ga. 376, 377 (1) (297 SE2d 473) (1982) (<HOLDING>); Akron Pest Control v. Radar Exterminating
holding that a restrictive covenant was unreasonable and overprotective since it would prohibit the employee from accepting employment from a former client who approached him for services without any prior solicitation on his part holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship holding that an attorney who breaches a fiduciary duty to a client forfeits his right to compensation without any requirement that the client prove actual harm holding that an attorney may only undertake to represent a new client against a former client  where there is no confidential information received from the former client that is in any way relevant to representation of the current client holding that the defendant was not seized when two officers approached the defendant on a public street and asked him questions