Court Opinion

ID: 9932600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:40:58.54191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:15.008379
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result only because of our previous holdings in Odess v. Taylor, 282 Ala. 389, 211 So.2d 805 (1968), andGant v. Warr, 286 Ala. 387, 240 So.2d 353 (1970), the latter decision specifically holding that the practice of accounting by Certified Public Accountants is a profession. The majority opinion extends this definition to "public accountants," reasoning that the record disclosed no difference in the duties and capabilities between the two. Although the majority opinion makes reference to a statutory procedure of certification and licensing, I do not believe this court to be bound by this fact, nor by the mere fact that a particular occupation may be characterized as "professional" in a statute. All occupations seek to improve their standards through licensing and certification procedures, but I do not believe that all would reach the "professional" status insofar as voiding a covenant by a seller of the good will of the business to refrain from competing with his purchaser.
BLOODWORTH, ALMON and SHORES, JJ., concur. *Page 4