Can a Dentist’s Social Media Posts Breach a Non-Solicitation Agreement “IRL”?
Jordan Uditsky • December 16, 2019
I don’t think it’s a stretch to presume that if you are a dentist or member of a dental practice, you have some kind of social media presence. Sure, it may be a Facebook or LinkedIn page that has been gathering dust since you first set it up years ago. For many dentists, however, active social media participation is a vital part of developing their practices, attracting new patients, and promoting awareness of their services and credentials.
But if you have moved on to a different practice or opened your own and are bound by the terms of a non-solicitation agreement, your online posting, friending, and connecting can raise some tricky issues “IRL” (“in real life,” as the kids say).
Non-solicitation agreements limit an employee’s ability to actively seek the business of the employer’s current patients/clients/customers for a given period, though they are free to set up shop and do business. Recently, courts here in Illinois and across the country have started to weigh in on whether and what kind of social media activity can constitute solicitation in violation of a general non-solicitation provision that does not specifically address social media use.
Generic and General vs. Specific and Targeted
The common thread in the developing case law is one which distinguishes between two types of social media activity:
- generalized social media engagement, such as LinkedIn or Facebook pages and posts, as well as friend or connection requests that do not substantively encourage recipients to become patient, customers, or employees
- posts and friend or connection requests targeted to specific people or groups and/or clearly focusing on attracting patients, clients, and employees to the business or practice
While every case presents specific facts and circumstances that will play a role in a court’s analysis, the former category of social media use is likely to be okay, while the latter may expose dentists to liability for breach of their non-solicitation agreement.
A 2017 decision by the Illinois Appellate Court contains a robust discussion about the topic and how courts in other jurisdictions have ruled.
In Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Am. Senior Benefits LLC, a former employee of the plaintiff moved to a new job and sent generic LinkedIn connection requests to three of his former colleagues who were still employed at Bankers Life. While the requests themselves contained nothing of substance, if those colleagues accepted the invitations and looked at the employee’s profile page, they would see a job opening posted by his new employer. The plaintiff claimed that this constituted solicitation of employees in violation of the former employee’s agreement.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims and held that a generic connection request to those employees, without more, does not constitute solicitation because “the next steps, whether to click on [plaintiff’s] profile or to access a job posting on [plaintiff’s] LinkedIn page, were all actions for which [plaintiff] could not be held responsible.”
Look at the Substance
In arriving at its decision, the court noted other cases involving similar and distinguishable fact patterns, all of which provide a good idea of where courts will draw the line between acceptable social media use and prohibited solicitation. Though these decisions do not bind Illinois judges, courts in other jurisdictions have found the following to not be violations of non-solicitation covenants:
- a web designer updates his LinkedIn page to reflect his new job and adds a post encouraging his contacts to “check out” a recent project he worked on.
- becoming friends with former clients on Facebook.
- posting a job opportunity on LinkedIn (as opposed to sending it to specific employees).
- employee's postings on Facebook touting his new employer's product and which was viewed by former colleagues did not violate agreement to not recruit employees from his former employer.
In contrast to these examples, the court also cited a federal case from Michigan
in which a former employee published a blog and other posts on Facebook post urging his former co-workers to leave his former employer by stating, "If you knew what I knew, you would do what I do."
Finding in favor of the employer, that court noted that “it is the substance of the message conveyed, and not the medium through which it is transmitted, that determines whether a communication qualifies as a solicitation… Communications qualifying as solicitations do not lose this character simply by virtue of being posted on the Internet."
For dentists who move on to greener pastures while bound by a non-solicitation agreement, it is the “substance” of their subsequent social media activity that they need to carefully consider before clicking “Enter.”
Though each situation must be evaluated on its own set of facts and circumstances, connection and friend requests to former patients may be acceptable provided such requests do not tout their new practice or otherwise encourage those patients to switch dentists. Similarly, social media posts and pages visible to the general public that promote a dentist’s new practice should avoid being specifically directed to former patients or risk violating a non-solicitation.
Again, every contract and every social media post is different. If you are a dentist or practice that has concerns about whether your social media activity or that of a former colleague may raise issues with existing contractual limitations, you should discuss your concerns with an attorney experienced with dental non-solicitation agreements.
Grogan Hesse & Uditsky: Serving Chicagoland’s Dental Professionals
At Grogan Hesse & Uditsky, P.C., 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.
Please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us
online to arrange for your free initial consultation.
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.
