Dentists and Non-Competition Agreements in Illinois: Is Yours Worth the Paper It’s Printed On?
Jordan Uditsky • October 15, 2019
There are over 4,800 dentists currently practicing in Illinois, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only four states have more dentists than the Land of Lincoln. That number makes for a competitive market, as well as one that provides a rich environment for dental professionals to find and seize new opportunities, either by joining another practice or starting their own.
As attorneys for the dental profession, we often receive questions about what limitations, if any, dentists can face from or impose on colleagues with whom they currently practice. Specifically, many dentists have signed or will be asked to sign non-competition or non-solicitation agreements, either as stand-alone documents or as part of an employment agreement.
But just because something is in writing doesn’t mean its worth the paper it's written on. Illinois courts will not enforce non-competition provisions that are unreasonably and unjustifiably broad or those unsupported by consideration. Poorly drafted – and thus unenforceable - agreements can give an employer a false sense of security, or cause a dentist to unnecessarily reject job offers or other opportunities.
This is not to say that all non-competition agreements in Illinois are invalid – those that meet the law’s requirements can be enforced. Therefore, it is important that dentists understand precisely what the law permits and what it doesn’t, no matter what side of a proposed agreement you may be on.
Non-Competition vs. Non-Solicitation
People often use the term “non-compete” as a catch-all for two related, but distinct,
limitations on future employment. But non-competition clauses and non-solicitation provisions are very much different, and the law treats them as such.
Typically, a non-competition agreement will purport to limit an employee’s ability to engage in their current profession or occupation within a specified geographic area for a set time. For dentists, this can mean that they agree not to treat any patients in the identified area until the end of that period.
Non-solicitation agreements, on the other hand, only 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.
Typically, courts will look at non-solicitation agreements less skeptically than they will non-competition agreements, as they are more limited in scope and more tailored to protect a business’ legitimate business interest in their existing clients. Dentists and physicians, however, can’t ethically stop a current patient from going to a former dental associate for treatment on their own volition if the dentist did not affirmatively solicit them.
Reasonableness
Every year, employees and employers file scores of lawsuits in Illinois seeking to enforce or strike down non-competition agreements. This has given Illinois courts ample opportunity to opine on these contracts and develop the contours of what is and what is not permitted. These contours have evolved over the years, generally in the direction of limiting the ability of employers to keep their former associates from making a living how, where, and when they choose.
The two primary factors that a court will consider when evaluating a non-competition agreement are its reasonableness and whether it is supported by sufficient consideration. Specifically, for a non-compete to be enforceable:
• Its geographic and temporal limitations must be no greater than needed to protect a legitimate business interest;
• Its restrictions must not impose an undue hardship on the employee; and
• Its restrictions must not be detrimental to the public.
This evaluation is very fact-specific. For a dental practice, what may be considered a reasonable geographic restriction in Arlington Heights, where ample opportunities to practice exist and hundreds of thousands of patients live nearby, may be significantly different than what would be reasonable in the 383 square miles of downstate Bond County, population 16,948.
Consideration
In terms of consideration, a necessary element in any enforceable contract, the promise of continued employment used to be seen as sufficient consideration for a non-competition provision. It still may be, but courts have begun to look at the totality of the circumstances in each individual case to make the determination. A promise of continued employment for an at-will employee has been found to be adequate consideration to render a restrictive covenant enforceable, but only if the employment lasted at least two years after the agreement was signed.
Where there is no additional compensation, such as a raise or special benefits, given to the employee in exchange for signing the non-compete, and the employee leaves less than two years after executing the restrictive covenant, courts have determined that the consideration is insufficient and the restrictive covenant is unenforceable.
Proposed or existing dental non-competition agreements can’t be evaluated in a vacuum; they must be drafted carefully and in the context of the specific practice and the market in which its provisions would be enforced. Any dentist wishing to or asked to enter into a non-competition agreement should consult with an experienced attorney who can help them make informed decisions about their rights.
You Focus On Your Patients. We’ll Focus On You.
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.
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.
Speak to an Attorney
Related Posts
Whatever shortcomings and deficiencies there may be in the dynamic between dental practices and insurance companies, their distinct roles in patient care are not among them. While dentists certainly want to maximize reimbursements for the services they provide, they are not beholden to insurers and remain in a position to advocate for their patients and challenge an insurer’s cost-related decisions without fear of retribution. But a recent unprecedented move by Delta Dental in Wisconsin threatens to upend this relationship model and has raised serious concerns among industry groups, patient advocates, and regulators about conflicts of interest, competition, and provider independence. Over the summer, Delta Dental announced that it had acquired Cherry Tree Dental, which owns and operates 31 clinics, 25 of which are in Wisconsin. The American Dental Association (ADA) is among several organizations that have vocally opposed the transaction. As the ADA wrote shortly after the deal was announced: When an insurance company becomes both health care provider and insurance payer, questions arise regarding potential conflict of interest. From a business standpoint, dental insurance companies seek to minimize cost and maximize profit. As a result, patients may find their treatment options limited to what is most cost-effective for the insurer, not necessarily what is most effective for their oral health. The ADA believes that the health interests of patients are best protected when dental practices and other private facilities for the delivery of dental care are owned and controlled by a dentist licensed in the jurisdiction where the practice is located. In November, the ADA filed a letter with the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance expanding on its concerns and opposition, including worries about provider independence in making care decisions: Direct ownership by Delta Dental could compromise dentists’ ability to advocate for patients. In traditional arrangements, dentists can appeal plan decisions regarding patient care or choose to leave a network if plan policies are overly restrictive. However, the ADA warned that when dentists are employed by the payer, challenging cost-related decisions could label them as “problem employees,” potentially discouraging proper patient care. The potentially anti-competitive effects of such arrangements were also raised by the ADA, which noted that “Delta Dental’s acquisition could influence agreements, business practices, and fee schedules between Cherry Tree and other payers, potentially creating unfair competition.” In addition to the ADA, the acquisition has drawn concerns from the Wisconsin Dental Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, and the Alliance of Independent Dentists. The fallout of this acquisition, if consummated, could ripple through other markets, potentially leading to a seismic shift in the provider-insurer landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients 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. 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. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
For many associate dentists, the sound of opportunity knocking comes in the form of an offer to become a co-owner of the practice where they work. Rare is the dentist who would reject out of hand the chance to reap the rewards of years of hard work and move from employee to owner. For the practice owner who opens the equity door for their associate, such a “buy-in” can infuse cash and value into the business, laying the foundation for a seamless ownership transition upon their retirement. The key to a successful buy-in is a clear and equitably structured deal that is workable for both parties in terms of how the associate will pay for their equity interest. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The structure of a dental associate buy-in can vary significantly depending on factors such as the associate’s financial capacity, the practice’s value, and the owner’s long-term objectives. Whether you are the associate or the practice owner in such an anticipated transaction, you should consult with an experienced dental practice attorney to understand your options and determine which structure provides you with the most value. Your discussions with your attorney will likely include some or all of these common dental associate buy-in arrangements: Cash Purchase A cash purchase is the most straightforward buy-in model. With either cash on hand or through financing (the more likely scenario), the associate purchases an agreed-upon percentage of the practice (for example, 25% or 50%) for a lump sum based on the appraised value of the practice. That appraisal will likely use metrics such as collections, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), or a percentage of annual gross revenue. The main advantage of a cash purchase is its simplicity and immediacy. The associate becomes an owner right away, while the practice owner receives a clean and full payout for the equity sold. However, obtaining the needed financing may be easier said than done for an associate dentist, and a large cash payout may also come with unwanted tax ramifications for the owner. Buy-in documents for a cash purchase should address governance rights, profit distribution, and exit mechanisms. They should also define what happens if an associate departs, how future buyouts are valued, and whether non-compete or non-solicitation covenants apply. Installment Sale An installment sale allows the associate to purchase equity over time, making periodic payments instead of an upfront lump-sum payment. After the practice value is determined, the associate agrees to buy a certain percentage of ownership through regular payments (e.g., monthly or quarterly) over several years. Payments may include interest, and ownership may be transferred incrementally or upon full payment. This is a good option for associates who do not have the means for a full cash buy-in immediately. For owners, this arrangement provides a steady income stream – so long as the associate does not leave before completing payments. That is why the documentation should clearly outline the timing of ownership right transfers and provide robust default remedies, such as forfeiture of prior payments or reversion of ownership interests. Sweat Equity In a sweat equity buy-in, the associate essentially cashes in their years of service, earning ownership over time based on their contribution to the practice’s growth or profitability rather than through an immediate cash investment. In a typical sweat equity arrangement, the associate receives equity credits or options tied to measurable performance benchmarks, such as production levels, collections, or tenure. Once those targets are met, a portion of ownership is granted or sold at a reduced price. This structure enables talented but liquidity-challenged associates to become owners without initial financial strain. It also incentivizes them to grow the practice and stay long-term. Shadow Account (a/k/a Phantom Equity) As I discussed in detail in this post , a shadow account (also known as a phantom equity plan) is an increasingly popular buy-in model, especially when the owner is not yet ready to transfer real equity but wants to reward the associate as if they were an owner. In this model, the associate receives the right to cash payments equal to the value of the shares at a specified later date or distribution event. That value can be established through an appraisal or an agreed-upon formula. The selected events that give an associate a right to a payout can include such things as achieving performance goals, termination, or retirement. There are two types of shadow account/phantom stock plans. In an "appreciation only” plan, the cash payout upon vesting does not include the value of the underlying shares, only the increase in value of that stock since it was granted. In a “full value” plan, the practice pays both the underlying value of the stock and the amount the stock has appreciated while held by the associate. Like actual stock, phantom stock has a defined value and tracks the practice’s performance, but an associate holding phantom stock typically does not have either minority shareholder rights or voting rights in the practice. This makes phantom stock plans attractive for owners who want to provide associates with a sense of equity ownership without giving up any actual control. The practice has broad discretion and flexibility in designing the plan, including valuation formulas and vesting conditions, and the administrative burdens are less than for traditional stock option plans. As noted, the “best” buy-in structure depends on the unique goals of both parties. No matter which model is ultimately adopted, well-crafted documentation, preceded by careful consideration and consultation with counsel, is essential. That is because these deals do more than just transfer ownership - they can lay the foundation for a stable, profitable partnership that preserves the practice’s legacy and rewards everyone’s investment, financial or otherwise. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients 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. 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. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
For years, state courts and legislatures have taken a skeptical eye toward non-competition agreements. Judges here in Illinois and elsewhere routinely struck down overly broad and overreaching provisions, while an increasing number of jurisdictions have passed legislation or ordinances banning non-competes outright or limiting their scope and enforceability. During the Biden administration, the federal government injected itself into the heretofore state and local assault on non-competes. Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took the position, in a Final Rule and counsel's opinion, respectively, that almost all existing and future non-competes were void and unenforceable. Those actions were immediately challenged in court, and litigation about the FTC's ban resulted in dueling district court rulings, with injunctions issued against its enforcement in some cases, while other judges found the FTC had properly issued the Final Rule. The FTC subsequently appealed federal court rulings in Texas and Florida that invalidated or enjoined, respectively, the FTC's non-compete ban. Then came Election Day 2024. Nationwide Ban Abandoned, but Challenges to Non-Competes Remain Unsurprisingly, for an administration with a penchant for being business-friendly and regulation-averse, the newly comprised FTC quickly changed its tune on a nationwide non-compete ban. A series of moves this year has made it clear that the federal government, at least for the next three years, is abandoning any such blanket efforts. Specifically, the FTC moved in September to dismiss its appeals of two district court decisions that had struck down the Final Rule. Simultaneously, the commission took steps towards acceding to the vacatur of the non-compete ban . At the same time, however, the FTC has also indicated, through recent enforcement actions and warning letters , that it will continue to pursue remedies against employers on a case-by-case basis for the unlawful use of post-employment non-competes under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits "unfair methods of competition." Those FTC efforts, which are nothing new, mean the battle over the validity of non-compete agreements will continue to be fought largely at the state and local levels. Once again, dental practice owners and other employers will need to tailor their non-competition agreements to comply with the patchwork of jurisprudence, laws, and regulations of the states and localities where they have employees while remaining mindful of anti-competitive overreach that could attract the FTC's attention. With the nationwide non-compete ban dead and buried, but restrictions on and litigation about the enforceability of such agreements very much alive, now is an opportune time for practice owners to consult with experienced employment counsel who can review and revise any existing or contemplated non-competition provision as necessary. If you have questions about your company’s non-competes or would like assistance reviewing or drafting such agreements, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky 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.
Whatever shortcomings and deficiencies there may be in the dynamic between dental practices and insurance companies, their distinct roles in patient care are not among them. While dentists certainly want to maximize reimbursements for the services they provide, they are not beholden to insurers and remain in a position to advocate for their patients and challenge an insurer’s cost-related decisions without fear of retribution. But a recent unprecedented move by Delta Dental in Wisconsin threatens to upend this relationship model and has raised serious concerns among industry groups, patient advocates, and regulators about conflicts of interest, competition, and provider independence. Over the summer, Delta Dental announced that it had acquired Cherry Tree Dental, which owns and operates 31 clinics, 25 of which are in Wisconsin. The American Dental Association (ADA) is among several organizations that have vocally opposed the transaction. As the ADA wrote shortly after the deal was announced: When an insurance company becomes both health care provider and insurance payer, questions arise regarding potential conflict of interest. From a business standpoint, dental insurance companies seek to minimize cost and maximize profit. As a result, patients may find their treatment options limited to what is most cost-effective for the insurer, not necessarily what is most effective for their oral health. The ADA believes that the health interests of patients are best protected when dental practices and other private facilities for the delivery of dental care are owned and controlled by a dentist licensed in the jurisdiction where the practice is located. In November, the ADA filed a letter with the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance expanding on its concerns and opposition, including worries about provider independence in making care decisions: Direct ownership by Delta Dental could compromise dentists’ ability to advocate for patients. In traditional arrangements, dentists can appeal plan decisions regarding patient care or choose to leave a network if plan policies are overly restrictive. However, the ADA warned that when dentists are employed by the payer, challenging cost-related decisions could label them as “problem employees,” potentially discouraging proper patient care. The potentially anti-competitive effects of such arrangements were also raised by the ADA, which noted that “Delta Dental’s acquisition could influence agreements, business practices, and fee schedules between Cherry Tree and other payers, potentially creating unfair competition.” In addition to the ADA, the acquisition has drawn concerns from the Wisconsin Dental Association, the American Economic Liberties Project, and the Alliance of Independent Dentists. The fallout of this acquisition, if consummated, could ripple through other markets, potentially leading to a seismic shift in the provider-insurer landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as warranted. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients 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. 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. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
For many associate dentists, the sound of opportunity knocking comes in the form of an offer to become a co-owner of the practice where they work. Rare is the dentist who would reject out of hand the chance to reap the rewards of years of hard work and move from employee to owner. For the practice owner who opens the equity door for their associate, such a “buy-in” can infuse cash and value into the business, laying the foundation for a seamless ownership transition upon their retirement. The key to a successful buy-in is a clear and equitably structured deal that is workable for both parties in terms of how the associate will pay for their equity interest. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The structure of a dental associate buy-in can vary significantly depending on factors such as the associate’s financial capacity, the practice’s value, and the owner’s long-term objectives. Whether you are the associate or the practice owner in such an anticipated transaction, you should consult with an experienced dental practice attorney to understand your options and determine which structure provides you with the most value. Your discussions with your attorney will likely include some or all of these common dental associate buy-in arrangements: Cash Purchase A cash purchase is the most straightforward buy-in model. With either cash on hand or through financing (the more likely scenario), the associate purchases an agreed-upon percentage of the practice (for example, 25% or 50%) for a lump sum based on the appraised value of the practice. That appraisal will likely use metrics such as collections, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), or a percentage of annual gross revenue. The main advantage of a cash purchase is its simplicity and immediacy. The associate becomes an owner right away, while the practice owner receives a clean and full payout for the equity sold. However, obtaining the needed financing may be easier said than done for an associate dentist, and a large cash payout may also come with unwanted tax ramifications for the owner. Buy-in documents for a cash purchase should address governance rights, profit distribution, and exit mechanisms. They should also define what happens if an associate departs, how future buyouts are valued, and whether non-compete or non-solicitation covenants apply. Installment Sale An installment sale allows the associate to purchase equity over time, making periodic payments instead of an upfront lump-sum payment. After the practice value is determined, the associate agrees to buy a certain percentage of ownership through regular payments (e.g., monthly or quarterly) over several years. Payments may include interest, and ownership may be transferred incrementally or upon full payment. This is a good option for associates who do not have the means for a full cash buy-in immediately. For owners, this arrangement provides a steady income stream – so long as the associate does not leave before completing payments. That is why the documentation should clearly outline the timing of ownership right transfers and provide robust default remedies, such as forfeiture of prior payments or reversion of ownership interests. Sweat Equity In a sweat equity buy-in, the associate essentially cashes in their years of service, earning ownership over time based on their contribution to the practice’s growth or profitability rather than through an immediate cash investment. In a typical sweat equity arrangement, the associate receives equity credits or options tied to measurable performance benchmarks, such as production levels, collections, or tenure. Once those targets are met, a portion of ownership is granted or sold at a reduced price. This structure enables talented but liquidity-challenged associates to become owners without initial financial strain. It also incentivizes them to grow the practice and stay long-term. Shadow Account (a/k/a Phantom Equity) As I discussed in detail in this post , a shadow account (also known as a phantom equity plan) is an increasingly popular buy-in model, especially when the owner is not yet ready to transfer real equity but wants to reward the associate as if they were an owner. In this model, the associate receives the right to cash payments equal to the value of the shares at a specified later date or distribution event. That value can be established through an appraisal or an agreed-upon formula. The selected events that give an associate a right to a payout can include such things as achieving performance goals, termination, or retirement. There are two types of shadow account/phantom stock plans. In an "appreciation only” plan, the cash payout upon vesting does not include the value of the underlying shares, only the increase in value of that stock since it was granted. In a “full value” plan, the practice pays both the underlying value of the stock and the amount the stock has appreciated while held by the associate. Like actual stock, phantom stock has a defined value and tracks the practice’s performance, but an associate holding phantom stock typically does not have either minority shareholder rights or voting rights in the practice. This makes phantom stock plans attractive for owners who want to provide associates with a sense of equity ownership without giving up any actual control. The practice has broad discretion and flexibility in designing the plan, including valuation formulas and vesting conditions, and the administrative burdens are less than for traditional stock option plans. As noted, the “best” buy-in structure depends on the unique goals of both parties. No matter which model is ultimately adopted, well-crafted documentation, preceded by careful consideration and consultation with counsel, is essential. That is because these deals do more than just transfer ownership - they can lay the foundation for a stable, profitable partnership that preserves the practice’s legacy and rewards everyone’s investment, financial or otherwise. We Focus on You So You Can Focus on Your Patients 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. 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. This blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
For years, state courts and legislatures have taken a skeptical eye toward non-competition agreements. Judges here in Illinois and elsewhere routinely struck down overly broad and overreaching provisions, while an increasing number of jurisdictions have passed legislation or ordinances banning non-competes outright or limiting their scope and enforceability. During the Biden administration, the federal government injected itself into the heretofore state and local assault on non-competes. Both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) took the position, in a Final Rule and counsel's opinion, respectively, that almost all existing and future non-competes were void and unenforceable. Those actions were immediately challenged in court, and litigation about the FTC's ban resulted in dueling district court rulings, with injunctions issued against its enforcement in some cases, while other judges found the FTC had properly issued the Final Rule. The FTC subsequently appealed federal court rulings in Texas and Florida that invalidated or enjoined, respectively, the FTC's non-compete ban. Then came Election Day 2024. Nationwide Ban Abandoned, but Challenges to Non-Competes Remain Unsurprisingly, for an administration with a penchant for being business-friendly and regulation-averse, the newly comprised FTC quickly changed its tune on a nationwide non-compete ban. A series of moves this year has made it clear that the federal government, at least for the next three years, is abandoning any such blanket efforts. Specifically, the FTC moved in September to dismiss its appeals of two district court decisions that had struck down the Final Rule. Simultaneously, the commission took steps towards acceding to the vacatur of the non-compete ban . At the same time, however, the FTC has also indicated, through recent enforcement actions and warning letters , that it will continue to pursue remedies against employers on a case-by-case basis for the unlawful use of post-employment non-competes under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits "unfair methods of competition." Those FTC efforts, which are nothing new, mean the battle over the validity of non-compete agreements will continue to be fought largely at the state and local levels. Once again, dental practice owners and other employers will need to tailor their non-competition agreements to comply with the patchwork of jurisprudence, laws, and regulations of the states and localities where they have employees while remaining mindful of anti-competitive overreach that could attract the FTC's attention. With the nationwide non-compete ban dead and buried, but restrictions on and litigation about the enforceability of such agreements very much alive, now is an opportune time for practice owners to consult with experienced employment counsel who can review and revise any existing or contemplated non-competition provision as necessary. If you have questions about your company’s non-competes or would like assistance reviewing or drafting such agreements, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky 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.
