CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE!
nat rosasco • May 17, 2013
INTRODUCTION Though it may seem that the economy is on the mend, a quick discussion with the leaders of many area businesses exposes an underlying unease as to whether the economy as a whole can sustain its recovery given the inability of bureaucrats in Washington to craft long-term solutions to our country’s financial crisis. Many […] The post CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE! appeared first on GGHH Law.
INTRODUCTION
Though it may seem that the economy is on the mend, a quick discussion with the leaders of many area businesses exposes an underlying unease as to whether the economy as a whole can sustain its recovery given the inability of bureaucrats in Washington to craft long-term solutions to our country’s financial crisis. Many of these businesses continue to struggle to remain profitable and avoid the financial pitfalls of the recent recession. These same struggles affect more than the businesses themselves, and when a business’ financial struggles involve a bankruptcy they can have devastating results for creditors, particularly commercial landlords. While commercial landlords either holding a cash security deposit or a letter of credit may think themselves isolated from a tenant’s bankruptcy, some have found that neither is actually immune from risk.
CASH PITFALLS
Cash security deposits have long been the traditional form of security for a commercial lease, typically in the amount of one to two month’s rent. However, the recent financial crisis exposed a weakness in what was otherwise thought to be ironclad security against a tenant’s default. When a tenant declares bankruptcy the landlord may find themselves enmeshed in a fight with the bankruptcy trustee to retain that security deposit. A cash security deposit is generally regarded as an asset of the bankruptcy estate under Section 541(a). Courts have held, however, that landlords may offset a portion of the security deposit against their allowable claims but that any surplus must be returned to the debtor ( Oldden v. Tonto Realty Corp. , 143 F.2d 916 (2 nd Cir. 1944)). They have gone further to provide that a landlord’s security deposit constitutes a perfected security interest or lien in the landlord’s favor ( In re Johnson , 215 B.R. 381, 384 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997)). It would seem the landlord’s ability to retain the security deposit is an equitable remedy until one examines and understands what an “allowable claim” is under the Bankruptcy Code.
A debtor-tenant has the ability to reject certain leases pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Such a lease rejection is tantamount to a default under the terms of most leases giving the landlord a general unsecured claim against the bankruptcy estate for the resulting damages. Unfortunately, the landlord’s claim is limited by Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code to the amount of accrued but unpaid rent plus the amount of rent reserved under the lease for the greater of one year or 15% of the remaining term of the lease. To the extent the cash security deposit exceeds the amount of the Landlord’s claim, it must be returned to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate.
WHY IS A LETTER OF CREDIT BETTER THAN CASH
In order to provide some insulation from the risk of a security deposit being tied up in a tenant’s bankruptcy, many landlords prefer the issuance of a standby letter of credit. A standby letter of credit issued by the tenant’s bank or, preferably, a bank satisfactory to the landlord is an independent obligation of the issuing bank to the landlord. The letter of credit stands apart from the tenant’s obligation to reimburse the issuing bank and is therefore not generally a part of the bankruptcy estate. Less risk? It would seem that way until one considers the long list of bank failures over the past several years and the FDIC’s unwillingness to honor letters of credit issued to commercial landlords by failed banking institutions. With the economic recovery still uncertain, commercial landlords should take proactive measures in their leases requiring tenants to replace letters of credit issued by insolvent banks and permitting the landlord to make a periodic review of the letter of credit issuer. Landlords should also reserve the absolute right to approve the bank issuing the letter of credit or provide a list of acceptable financial institutions from whom they will accept a letter of credit. It should also be noted that the interaction between a landlord’s proposed draw on a letter of credit and the 502(b)(6) cap is unsettled. Landlord’s should anticipate that any drawdown on a letter of credit may have an impact on the amount of the landlord’s claim in a tenant’s bankruptcy.
Jordan Uditsky is a partner in the corporate practice of Garelli, Grogan, Hesse & Hauert. He brings a diverse legal and business background to the firm, with a particular emphasis on the representation of startups and emerging companies, commercial real estate transactions, tax and estate planning. He advises businesses in a broad range of general corporate and corporate transactional matters, including business organizations and choice of entity issues, financing and private equity, mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures as well as business restructurings. Mr. Uditsky also employs his experience as a business owner to advise companies on regulatory issues and compliance matters, employment policies and legal issues related to their general operations and business strategy.
Garelli Grogan Hesse & Hauert offers sophisticated yet cost effective, practical solutions to our clients’ legal challenges. We strive to understand not only the legal issue but our clients’ business goals as well and craft tailored solutions to help them succeed. Our attorneys represent businesses and individuals throughout the Midwest in matters that include commercial litigation, securities, business counseling and transactions, commercial real estate, estate planning and family law. For more information contact Jordan Uditsky at (630)833-5533 x12 or juditsky@gghhlaw.com.
The post CASH OR CREDIT…LANDLORDS BEWARE! appeared first on GGHH Law.
Speak to an Attorney
Related Posts
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was signed into law. One may question whether this sprawling piece of legislation deserves to be called “beautiful,” but it undoubtedly earns the “big” in its name, especially for small businesses like dental practices. That is because it contains several provisions that could have a significant impact on the tax obligations of practices and their owners. Most notably, the OBBBA solidifies significant tax reforms and exemptions that were part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Here are seven aspects of the OBBBA that are of particular interest to dental practices and their owners. 1. Permanent Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction The 20 percent small business tax deduction (also known as the section 199a deduction) for sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, is made permanent and extends the amount of income subject to the phase-out rules. Specifically, the income threshold for single taxpayers is expanded by $25,000 and for joint filers by $50,000. The bill also includes a new minimum deduction of $400 for taxpayers with at least $1,000 of qualified business income from one or more actively conducted trades or businesses in which they materially participate. 2. Expanding Section 179 Expensing The bill increases the Small Business Expensing Cap from $1.22 million to $2.5 million. It also brings back and makes permanent “bonus depreciation,” which allows for an immediate write-off of 100 percent (versus 40 percent) of the cost of new qualified property acquired after January 19, 2025, such as equipment, vehicles, and software. 3. Qualified Small Business Stock The OBBBA modifies the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) provisions contained in Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code by increasing the amounts that can be excluded from gross income, raising the size limit for QSBS investments, and shortening the holding period so investors can take advantage of the provision's benefits earlier than before. Specifically: For QSBS issued after OBBBA's July 4, 2025, effective date, the per-taxpayer gain exclusion cap for the sale of QSBS is raised from $10 million to $15 million, with that threshold being adjusted for inflation starting in 2027. The exclusion amount will now be $15 million or 10x the basis in the stock, whichever is greater. The aggregate gross assets a C corporation may have for its stock to qualify as a qualified small business is now $75 million – up from $50 million - for stock issued after July 4, 2025, with the new limit to be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2027. For QSBS acquired after July 4, 2025, the holding period required to qualify for the QSBS gain exclusion drops from five years to three years. After three years, a 50% exclusion is available, increasing to 75% after four years, and reaching 100% exclusion after five years. 4. Enhancing the Employer-provided Childcare Credit Section 45F of the tax code, which is designed to incentivize businesses to invest in childcare, now provides qualifying small businesses (gross receipts of $25 million or less for the preceding five years) with a maximum tax credit of up to $600,000 per year on up to 50 percent of qualified childcare expenses provided to employees. This credit is effective beginning in 2026. 5. Employer-provided Student Loan Repayment Assistance The OBBBA makes the employer-provided student loan repayment benefit permanent, allowing employers to contribute up to $5,250 per year towards employees' student loans, tax-free for both the employer and employee. This annual limit will be adjusted for inflation starting in 2026, ensuring the benefit keeps pace with rising education costs. 6. Permanent, Inflation-Indexed Estate & Gift Tax Exemption The OBBBA permanently increases the unified federal estate and lifetime gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual ($30 million for married couples), indexed for inflation starting in 2026. If the TCJA’s exemption provisions had expired, the threshold would have dropped to approximately $7 million per individual. This stability allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to accelerate lifetime gifting and fund trusts efficiently. Techniques such as SLATs (Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts) are now more powerful planning tools given the increased exemption scope. The generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption is now also aligned with the $15 million per individual exemption, also indexed for inflation. 7. SALT Deduction Raised – For Some The law increased the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000; however, this cap is not universally available. If your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds certain thresholds, the $40,000 cap will be phased out. For single filers, the phase-out starts at $250,000 MAGI. For joint filers, the phase-out starts at $500,000 MAGI. The deduction is reduced by 30% of the amount exceeding these thresholds until it reaches the original $10,000 cap for the highest earners. The income thresholds for the phase-out will increase by 1% annually from 2026 to 2029. If you have questions about the OBBBA and what it means for you and your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Dental practices that choose to lease rather than purchase and own their business location have several options for setting up shop. While plenty of practices operate out of stand-alone buildings, even more lease space in retail shopping centers, professional buildings, or office complexes. The terms of that lease – from the rent to the term to build-out, termination, or assignment rights – can have an outsized impact on the growth and success of a practice. But one lease provision, in particular, can determine whether your practice faces stiff and unwanted competition from another practice just steps from your office’s front door: the exclusivity (or exclusive use) clause. What Is An Exclusive Use Provision in a Dental Practice Lease? As the name implies, an exclusive use clause in a lease limits the landlord’s ability to lease space in the same complex or building to another tenant engaged in the same type of business. Think about why you would choose a particular location for your practice. Aside from the features of the space itself, it is likely because of favorable characteristics like foot traffic, accessibility, parking, and the lack of other similar practices in the surrounding area. If, after conducting demographic research and spending time and resources selecting the perfect location for your practice, your landlord could wipe out those efforts with the stroke of a pen by leasing space nearby to a competing practice, it could be a devastating blow. Negotiating an Exclusive Use Provision Most commercial leases are initially prepared by the landlord. As such, they are unsurprisingly skewed in favor of the landlord’s interests. It is unlikely that a landlord would voluntarily and preemptively tie their hands by limiting the pool of potential tenants. That is why the burden is usually on the tenant to push for and negotiate an exclusivity provision. When negotiating the terms of your dental practice lease (which you should only do with the help and counsel of an experienced attorney), the goal will be to get your landlord to agree not to rent space to other dental practice tenants. If your landlord refuses to limit their ability to lease space to other dentists generally and you nevertheless want to pursue the desired space, you may be able to be more specific and agree to a provision that restricts the landlord’s ability to lease to a particular competing specialty such as pediatric dentists, orthodontists, periodontists, etc. Protecting Yourself From a Landlord’s Breach of an Exclusivity Clause The contracts most likely to be broken are those with few, if any, consequences for violating their terms. That is why the value of an exclusivity provision is directly related to the price that the landlord will pay for entering into a lease with a competitor despite the clause in your lease. Given the potentially catastrophic impact of having a neighbor in the same building siphoning off your patients and diluting your hard-earned goodwill, that price should be significant. Several different penalties can serve to protect your practice from a breach of an exclusivity provision: Rent Abatement. One of the most straightforward and commonly used remedies is rent abatement. If the landlord allows a competing business to open in violation of the exclusive use clause, an abatement penalty can entitle you to a full or partial reduction in base rent or other charges. This abatement typically remains in effect until the violation is cured or the competing tenant leaves. The lease should specify the amount of rent to be abated (e.g., 50% of base rent) and whether the abatement applies to other charges such as common area maintenance fees or percentage rent. Termination Right. A strong lease will give the tenant the option to terminate the lease entirely if the landlord fails to cure the violation within a specified period after notice. This is a significant penalty that underscores the seriousness of the exclusive use protection. Liquidated Damages. Liquidated damages provide a pre-agreed amount that the landlord must pay if it breaches the exclusive use clause. This can be calculated based on the tenant’s projected loss in revenue, estimated lost profits, or some other measurable metric tied to the tenant’s business performance. Injunctive Relief. Ideally, the lease should give you the right to seek injunctive relief from a court to stop the violation of the exclusive use provision, such as requiring the landlord to terminate the lease or evict the competing tenant. Getting a landlord to agree to a strong exclusivity provision with equally strong penalties for breaches of it requires deft and persuasive negotiating skills, and is yet another reason why dental practice owners should never enter into or negotiate a lease without the assistance of experienced counsel. If you are considering a lease for your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Dental Practice Act (the “Act”), which Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to soon sign into law, will make it easier for newly minted dental professionals to begin practicing while their license applications are pending. The amendments, which would take effect on January 1, 2026, establish the following criteria under which license-pending dentists and dental hygienists can practice under the delegation of a licensed general dentist: The Applicant has completed and passed the IDFPR-approved licensure exam and presented their employer with an official written notification indicating such; The Applicant has completed and submitted the application for licensure; and The Applicant has submitted the required licensure fee. Once obtained, authorization for dentists and dental hygienists to practice under these provisions can be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following: The Applicant receives their full-practice license; IDFPR provides notification that the Applicant’s application has been denied; IDFPR requests that the Applicant stop practicing as a license-pending dentist/dental hygienist until the Department makes an official decision to grant or deny a license to practice; or Six months have passed since the official date of the Applicant’s passage of the licensure exam (i.e., the date on the formal written notification of such from the Department). IDFPR has yet to post anything on its website regarding these amendments, but we will provide an update if and when it does. If you have any questions about these new provisions regarding the employment of license-pending dentists and hygienists, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was signed into law. One may question whether this sprawling piece of legislation deserves to be called “beautiful,” but it undoubtedly earns the “big” in its name, especially for small businesses like dental practices. That is because it contains several provisions that could have a significant impact on the tax obligations of practices and their owners. Most notably, the OBBBA solidifies significant tax reforms and exemptions that were part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Here are seven aspects of the OBBBA that are of particular interest to dental practices and their owners. 1. Permanent Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction The 20 percent small business tax deduction (also known as the section 199a deduction) for sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, is made permanent and extends the amount of income subject to the phase-out rules. Specifically, the income threshold for single taxpayers is expanded by $25,000 and for joint filers by $50,000. The bill also includes a new minimum deduction of $400 for taxpayers with at least $1,000 of qualified business income from one or more actively conducted trades or businesses in which they materially participate. 2. Expanding Section 179 Expensing The bill increases the Small Business Expensing Cap from $1.22 million to $2.5 million. It also brings back and makes permanent “bonus depreciation,” which allows for an immediate write-off of 100 percent (versus 40 percent) of the cost of new qualified property acquired after January 19, 2025, such as equipment, vehicles, and software. 3. Qualified Small Business Stock The OBBBA modifies the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) provisions contained in Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code by increasing the amounts that can be excluded from gross income, raising the size limit for QSBS investments, and shortening the holding period so investors can take advantage of the provision's benefits earlier than before. Specifically: For QSBS issued after OBBBA's July 4, 2025, effective date, the per-taxpayer gain exclusion cap for the sale of QSBS is raised from $10 million to $15 million, with that threshold being adjusted for inflation starting in 2027. The exclusion amount will now be $15 million or 10x the basis in the stock, whichever is greater. The aggregate gross assets a C corporation may have for its stock to qualify as a qualified small business is now $75 million – up from $50 million - for stock issued after July 4, 2025, with the new limit to be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2027. For QSBS acquired after July 4, 2025, the holding period required to qualify for the QSBS gain exclusion drops from five years to three years. After three years, a 50% exclusion is available, increasing to 75% after four years, and reaching 100% exclusion after five years. 4. Enhancing the Employer-provided Childcare Credit Section 45F of the tax code, which is designed to incentivize businesses to invest in childcare, now provides qualifying small businesses (gross receipts of $25 million or less for the preceding five years) with a maximum tax credit of up to $600,000 per year on up to 50 percent of qualified childcare expenses provided to employees. This credit is effective beginning in 2026. 5. Employer-provided Student Loan Repayment Assistance The OBBBA makes the employer-provided student loan repayment benefit permanent, allowing employers to contribute up to $5,250 per year towards employees' student loans, tax-free for both the employer and employee. This annual limit will be adjusted for inflation starting in 2026, ensuring the benefit keeps pace with rising education costs. 6. Permanent, Inflation-Indexed Estate & Gift Tax Exemption The OBBBA permanently increases the unified federal estate and lifetime gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual ($30 million for married couples), indexed for inflation starting in 2026. If the TCJA’s exemption provisions had expired, the threshold would have dropped to approximately $7 million per individual. This stability allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to accelerate lifetime gifting and fund trusts efficiently. Techniques such as SLATs (Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts) are now more powerful planning tools given the increased exemption scope. The generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption is now also aligned with the $15 million per individual exemption, also indexed for inflation. 7. SALT Deduction Raised – For Some The law increased the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000; however, this cap is not universally available. If your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds certain thresholds, the $40,000 cap will be phased out. For single filers, the phase-out starts at $250,000 MAGI. For joint filers, the phase-out starts at $500,000 MAGI. The deduction is reduced by 30% of the amount exceeding these thresholds until it reaches the original $10,000 cap for the highest earners. The income thresholds for the phase-out will increase by 1% annually from 2026 to 2029. If you have questions about the OBBBA and what it means for you and your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Dental practices that choose to lease rather than purchase and own their business location have several options for setting up shop. While plenty of practices operate out of stand-alone buildings, even more lease space in retail shopping centers, professional buildings, or office complexes. The terms of that lease – from the rent to the term to build-out, termination, or assignment rights – can have an outsized impact on the growth and success of a practice. But one lease provision, in particular, can determine whether your practice faces stiff and unwanted competition from another practice just steps from your office’s front door: the exclusivity (or exclusive use) clause. What Is An Exclusive Use Provision in a Dental Practice Lease? As the name implies, an exclusive use clause in a lease limits the landlord’s ability to lease space in the same complex or building to another tenant engaged in the same type of business. Think about why you would choose a particular location for your practice. Aside from the features of the space itself, it is likely because of favorable characteristics like foot traffic, accessibility, parking, and the lack of other similar practices in the surrounding area. If, after conducting demographic research and spending time and resources selecting the perfect location for your practice, your landlord could wipe out those efforts with the stroke of a pen by leasing space nearby to a competing practice, it could be a devastating blow. Negotiating an Exclusive Use Provision Most commercial leases are initially prepared by the landlord. As such, they are unsurprisingly skewed in favor of the landlord’s interests. It is unlikely that a landlord would voluntarily and preemptively tie their hands by limiting the pool of potential tenants. That is why the burden is usually on the tenant to push for and negotiate an exclusivity provision. When negotiating the terms of your dental practice lease (which you should only do with the help and counsel of an experienced attorney), the goal will be to get your landlord to agree not to rent space to other dental practice tenants. If your landlord refuses to limit their ability to lease space to other dentists generally and you nevertheless want to pursue the desired space, you may be able to be more specific and agree to a provision that restricts the landlord’s ability to lease to a particular competing specialty such as pediatric dentists, orthodontists, periodontists, etc. Protecting Yourself From a Landlord’s Breach of an Exclusivity Clause The contracts most likely to be broken are those with few, if any, consequences for violating their terms. That is why the value of an exclusivity provision is directly related to the price that the landlord will pay for entering into a lease with a competitor despite the clause in your lease. Given the potentially catastrophic impact of having a neighbor in the same building siphoning off your patients and diluting your hard-earned goodwill, that price should be significant. Several different penalties can serve to protect your practice from a breach of an exclusivity provision: Rent Abatement. One of the most straightforward and commonly used remedies is rent abatement. If the landlord allows a competing business to open in violation of the exclusive use clause, an abatement penalty can entitle you to a full or partial reduction in base rent or other charges. This abatement typically remains in effect until the violation is cured or the competing tenant leaves. The lease should specify the amount of rent to be abated (e.g., 50% of base rent) and whether the abatement applies to other charges such as common area maintenance fees or percentage rent. Termination Right. A strong lease will give the tenant the option to terminate the lease entirely if the landlord fails to cure the violation within a specified period after notice. This is a significant penalty that underscores the seriousness of the exclusive use protection. Liquidated Damages. Liquidated damages provide a pre-agreed amount that the landlord must pay if it breaches the exclusive use clause. This can be calculated based on the tenant’s projected loss in revenue, estimated lost profits, or some other measurable metric tied to the tenant’s business performance. Injunctive Relief. Ideally, the lease should give you the right to seek injunctive relief from a court to stop the violation of the exclusive use provision, such as requiring the landlord to terminate the lease or evict the competing tenant. Getting a landlord to agree to a strong exclusivity provision with equally strong penalties for breaches of it requires deft and persuasive negotiating skills, and is yet another reason why dental practice owners should never enter into or negotiate a lease without the assistance of experienced counsel. If you are considering a lease for your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Dental Practice Act (the “Act”), which Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to soon sign into law, will make it easier for newly minted dental professionals to begin practicing while their license applications are pending. The amendments, which would take effect on January 1, 2026, establish the following criteria under which license-pending dentists and dental hygienists can practice under the delegation of a licensed general dentist: The Applicant has completed and passed the IDFPR-approved licensure exam and presented their employer with an official written notification indicating such; The Applicant has completed and submitted the application for licensure; and The Applicant has submitted the required licensure fee. Once obtained, authorization for dentists and dental hygienists to practice under these provisions can be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following: The Applicant receives their full-practice license; IDFPR provides notification that the Applicant’s application has been denied; IDFPR requests that the Applicant stop practicing as a license-pending dentist/dental hygienist until the Department makes an official decision to grant or deny a license to practice; or Six months have passed since the official date of the Applicant’s passage of the licensure exam (i.e., the date on the formal written notification of such from the Department). IDFPR has yet to post anything on its website regarding these amendments, but we will provide an update if and when it does. If you have any questions about these new provisions regarding the employment of license-pending dentists and hygienists, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
