Restraint, Response, or Retaliation: Dentists Need to Think Carefully Before Responding to Negative Online Reviews
Jordan Uditsky • February 4, 2020
Dentistry may be a unique profession with a proud history, but online, a dental practice is no different than a dry cleaner, restaurant, mechanic, or liquor store. That is because dental patients are just as likely to post a review of their experience on Yelp! or other online review sites as are customers of other businesses. And, as is the case for all businesses and professions, customers who have negative opinions tend to share those more often, and more adamantly, than those who have positive things to say. And Mary Alberti recently had a lot to say about her experience with a Buffalo Grove, Illinois endodontist.
As outlined in a defamation lawsuit the endodontist filed against Alberti, his former patient engaged in a concerted internet smear campaign to destroy his good name and reputation by posting “post after post” on Yelp!, Google, and other sites that contained false, defamatory, and anti-Semitic comments. He is seeking more than $4 million in damages, while Alberti has moved to have the case dismissed.
While the allegations in the Alberti case represent an extreme example of an angry, vindictive, and prolific patient using the internet to smear a dentist with an otherwise impeccable record, even one negative review can have a significant impact on a dentist’s practice and reputation.
Can You Sue for Defamation? Sure. Whether You Should Is a Much Harder Question
On more than one occasion, a panicked and indignant dentist or other client of mine has called me to ask whether they could and should sue their former patient for defamation as the doctor in the Alberti case has done. The answer, of course, is that you are well within your rights to sue "IHateYourDentalPractice123” or whoever it is that is trying to take a wrecking ball to your career. You can sue anybody for anything. Whether such a lawsuit will be successful or has any legal basis is another matter entirely.
The fact is that even the most scathing negative online review, if susceptible to the principle of “innocent construction” (meaning the allegedly libelous statement is given a non-defamatory interpretation because it is deemed ambiguous) or is composed of opinions rather than demonstrably false allegations of misconduct, will likely not qualify as actionable defamation in Illinois. Furthermore, such lawsuits can expose the offended dentist or other professional to backlash, ridicule, and bad publicity in the fast-moving and fickle world of social media.
If you look to hold online review sites and other platforms responsible for false and defamatory information posted by reviewers, you won’t get terribly far. While you may be able to get a website to remove a particularly egregious post, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act largely immunizes such sites from claims based on comments or reviews posted by third party users.
A High Bar to Prove Defamation in Illinois
In order for a dentist to prove defamation under Illinois law, including a claim based on an online review, he or she needs to show that:
- the patient made a false statement about the dentist;
- there was an unprivileged publication of the false statement to a third party;
- fault by the defendant amounting to at least negligence; and
- the patient’s publication of the review caused damage to the dentist.
As to that last element, a defamation plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages if the statements are deemed inherently damaging. Defamation per se, as it is called, includes making such false allegations that the plaintiff:
- committed a crime;
- is infected with a loathsome communicable disease;
- is unable to perform or lacks integrity in fulfilling his or her professional responsibilities;
- lacks the ability to perform their professional duties, or otherwise harms the plaintiff in their professional reputation
- has committed fornication or adultery.
Is It a Subjective Opinion or Factual Allegation?
The most common issue that arises in defamation cases based on online reviews is the question of whether or not a statement was false. Only false statements of fact can form the basis of a defamation claim, not opinions, no matter how histrionic or counterfactual they may be. A statement of fact is one that can be objectively proved or disproved. Consider the two following hypothetical reviews of a dentist:
“She was rude, impatient, and treated me disrespectfully. It was perhaps the worst experience I’ve ever had with a dentist in my entire life. She is horrible.”
“He stole money from my purse and touched me inappropriately while I was under sedation.”
The former is non-actionable opinion, as the dentist will not be able to objectively prove whether or not she was, in fact, rude, disrespectful and the cause of one of the worst experiences in the patient’s life. Contrast that with the latter statement that accuses the dentist of specific actions and misconduct that can be proven or disproven with evidence.
Context Matters
Illinois courts have also focused on the context in which an allegedly defamatory statement was made when determining whether it can be the basis of a defamation claim. Even if one comment in a lengthy online rant is arguably a statement of provable fact, it may not rise to the level of defamation if a reasonable reader would see it merely as hyperbolic invective.
Consider the 2013 case of Brompton Building, LLC v. Yelp, Inc.,
in which a building management company filed a defamation suit against an anonymous former tenant who had posted an over-the-top, relentlessly negative, and extremely lengthy review online. Even though the rant contained a few objectively disprovable statements, the Illinois Appellate Court found that those comments could not support a defamation claim because they would not be understood to be actual factual allegations in the context of the full review. As the court stated, "The context of the defamatory statements is critical in determining its meaning. In determining the context of the defamatory statements, we must read the writing containing the defamatory statement 'as a whole.'"
Dentists Need to Consider Patient Privacy and Professional Ethics
When faced with negative reviews, dentists need to make sure that their response doesn’t make a bad situation worse or make them appear petty and vindictive. Additionally, dentists who do decide to respond to a patient’s negative review publicly may inadvertently reveal confidential patient information in their attempts to refute allegations of poor or substandard care. Such HIPPA violations can have catastrophic licensing and regulatory consequences for dentists.
As infuriating as negative online reviews can be, it is the rare dentist who can make it through their career without leaving at least one patient dissatisfied or unhappy with their treatment. When a patient shares those feelings with the world, it can be easy to let it get under your skin, especially if the attacks are as relentless, ongoing, and full of unsavory allegations as appear in the Alberti case, which we’ll be monitoring to see if the court protects the endodontist from what seems to be a clear case of defamation. But sometimes, restraint can speak louder than a retort.
Speak to an Attorney
Related Posts
Bogus ADA Claims Regarding Dental Practice Websites Are Rampant. Your Lawyer Can Help You Tell the Difference Between a Real Problem and a Real Shakedown. Over 25 years have passed since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) quite literally reshaped the landscape for people with disabilities. From building entrances to parking lots to restrooms to elevators, from hiring and employment opportunities to restaurants, stores, and websites, disabled Americans have far greater access to the same facilities, services, and opportunities as everyone else. Harassment at Best, Extortion at Worst For all the good it has accomplished, however, the ADA has also been abused by opportunistic individuals and attorneys who have used the law in bad faith to shake down small businesses, including dental practices, for alleged violations that have not actually caused any harm or infringed upon any rights afforded by the act. These self-appointed ADA compliance "testers" have filed thousands of nuisance ADA suits that have cost American businesses millions of dollars. According to one analysis, ADA lawsuits have increased by 320% since 2013, with over 4,000 suits filed in 2024 alone. Many plaintiff's law firms file hundreds of cookie-cutter ADA lawsuits each year. One person can visit multiple businesses or websites in a single day solely to identify even the slightest accessibility transgressions in order to generate claims. While these suits can focus on any number of alleged ADA shortcomings, those relating to website accessibility (discussed in detail in this earlier post ) filed by a handful of law firms and serial plaintiffs have earned the scorn of small businesses and practices across the country. That's because these "testers" and the lawyers who represent them specifically target small businesses, as they typically have limited means to defend themselves, may not be able to discern between legitimate and bogus claims, and often see a quick payoff as the path of least resistance. Here’s how the shakedown typically goes down: A plaintiff or their attorney sends the practice a demand letter in which they claim that the practice’s website is inaccessible to people with disabilities (e.g., missing image alt text, inaccessible forms, incompatible with screen readers). They cite a violation of Title III of the ADA. They make a demand for a cash settlement, often ranging from $2,500 to $25,000, alongside a request for accessibility fixes. The business/practice cuts a check in exchange for a release of any ADA claims by that plaintiff related to the website. The business/practice may then receive more demand letters, often from the same firm, on behalf of other plaintiffs who make the same claim, and the extortion continues. Don’t Act Impulsively – Do This Instead All this is not to say that dental practice owners should consider all such claims and demands to be frivolous or ignore their ADA obligations relating to their website. To be sure, a meritorious ADA lawsuit can indeed expose a practice to significant financial and reputational damage. Before reflexively giving in to an ADA demand letter and settling a supposed claim, practice owners should take the following steps: · Don't Panic, But Don't Ignore It. As noted, a demand letter with legalese and ominous language doesn’t mean that you’ve done anything wrong or actually violated the law. While your immediate reaction may include fear, confusion, or anger, don’t act impulsively. By the same token, don’t assume it is a bogus threat; crumble up the letter and throw it in the recycling. Deadlines in these letters are real, and failing to respond appropriately to a viable claim could lead to litigation. · Contact Your Attorney Immediately. This is not a DIY situation. Before responding to the letter or contacting the sender, consult with an attorney experienced in ADA compliance and website accessibility issues. Your lawyer can evaluate the demand letter or complaint, the validity of the claim, and the law firm behind it before formulating an appropriate response. Testers send many cookie-cutter letters that may contain boilerplate allegations of deficiencies that do not actually exist. · Evaluate Your Actual Compliance. Work with your attorney and website accessibility experts to have your website assessed against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) , which courts often reference in ADA website cases. Understanding your site's actual accessibility helps inform whether settlement, remediation, or another approach makes sense and whether you need to take additional steps to avoid future claims. Keep in mind that this isn't just about legal compliance—it's good business. An accessible website serves all patients better and demonstrates your commitment to inclusivity. If you have questions about your business's ADA obligations and how to protect it from accessibility complaints, please call Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. 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. 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 employers and employees alike, in workplaces from restaurants to factories to dental practices, the specter of a visit from ICE, CBP, or other federal immigration forces looms large. Trepidation and fear are common feelings in this perilous climate, exacerbated by uncertainty as to one’s rights and how to respond when militarized agents arrive at a workplace. For dental practice owners, protecting their employees, patients, and business is a top priority, as is doing so in a legal, peaceful, and effective manner that doesn’t make a difficult situation worse. That is why it is so critical that you understand your rights and obligations in the face of such intrusions. While you should absolutely and immediately contact counsel if immigration agents show up at your practice, here is some practical guidance to help keep you and your employees safe. Different Responses to Different Types of ICE Actions Historically, ICE has conducted three types of workplace actions: I-9 audits (Notice of Inspection or “NOI”), which are administrative reviews of employment eligibility verification forms; worksite enforcement operations, which may include arrests; and searches pursuant to a warrant. Unfortunately, these customary practices have recently expanded to include warrantless, legally unauthorized, and sometimes violent entry into workplaces. The type of action the agency takes determines your obligations and your rights. An I-9 audit begins with a formal notice, typically giving you three business days to produce your I-9 forms and supporting documentation. A worksite enforcement operation or raid, however, often comes without warning. Understanding which situation you're facing is the critical first step. When ICE Arrives Without Notice – Keep Calm, Call Your Lawyer, and Ask For Authority If ICE agents appear at your workplace without prior notice, remain calm and follow these essential steps: · Keep calm , and don’t make any quick or impulsive decisions. Politely ask the agents to wait while you contact your attorney. You are not required to let agents enter non-public areas of your workplace without proper legal authority. While agents can enter your reception area or other common spaces as any member of the public could, they cannot access private areas such as treatment rooms, back offices, lunchrooms, or labs without your consent, a valid warrant, or an emergency. · Ask to see credentials and any warrants or legal documents. Scrutinize these thoroughly and understand this crucial distinction: an administrative warrant (Form I-200 or I-205) is not the same as a judicial warrant signed by a judge. Administrative warrants alone do not give ICE the authority to enter your private property or detain individuals. A judicial warrant, however, must be honored, though you should still speak with your lawyer who can help verify that it's properly signed, dated, and identifies the correct location and individuals. · Designate a single point of contact , ideally yourself as practice owner or an office manager, to communicate with the agents. Instruct other employees not to answer questions or provide information without guidance. This prevents confusion and minimizes the chances of miscommunication or escalation. Understanding Your Rights Employers have constitutional rights that apply during ICE encounters. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As noted, without a judicial warrant or your consent, ICE generally cannot enter private areas of your practice, search filing cabinets or computer systems, or detain employees based solely on their immigration status. You have the right to refuse consent to a search. Exercise that right. If agents don't have a warrant, you can politely but firmly state: "I do not consent to a search of the premises. If you have a warrant signed by a judge, I would like to see it and have my attorney review it." If they have a warrant, verify it carefully to check that the address is correct, the signature is from a federal judge (not an ICE officer), and it's dated recently. Despite the recent rhetoric and actions of ICE agents and officials, you have an absolute right to observe, record, video, and document what's happening and what the agents are doing, so long as you do not interfere with or impede their operations. If ICE does enter your practice, you or your designated representative has the right to, and should, accompany agents to witness their actions. Protecting Your Employees Your employees also have rights, regardless of their immigration status. They have the right to remain silent and do not have to answer questions about their immigration status, where they were born, or how they entered the country. They have the right to refuse to show documents beyond what's necessary to demonstrate identity, unless they're under arrest. They should not lie or present false documents, as this can create additional legal problems. Before an ICE visit occurs, consider holding a "know your rights" training for employees. Inform them that if ICE arrives, they should remain calm, not run, and not present false documents. Provide them with a card that includes information about their rights and the contact information for your practice's attorney. You should never lie to federal agents or provide false information. However, you are not required to volunteer information or answer questions beyond what's legally necessary. If asked about specific employees, you can politely decline to answer and refer agents to your attorney. Once ICE agents leave, immediately document everything that occurred and save any videos or recordings so you can send them to your attorney. Preparing Before ICE Arrives The best time to prepare for an ICE visit is before it happens. Consider the following proactive steps: · Develop a written policy for your practice that designates who will handle ICE encounters, what steps to take, and how to contact your attorney. · Conduct an internal I-9 audit to identify and correct any paperwork errors or gaps. · Train office managers and supervisors on the protocol. Everyone should know not to consent to searches, not to answer questions without guidance, and to remain professional and calm. Post "know your rights" information for employees in common areas. If you have any questions or concerns regarding ICE or immigration enforcement activities at your practice, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. 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.
Selling a dental practice is a lengthy and involved process that involves due diligence, negotiation, drafting, financing, and other elements, culminating in the seller handing over the keys to the business to the buyer. But the parties’ signatures on the final purchase agreement and ancillary documents hardly mean that the now-former owner can ride off into the sunset without a care in the world. That is because the purchaser will want and require the seller to be responsible for any undisclosed or undiscovered problems with the practice they just bought. For this reason, every dental practice purchase agreement will inevitably contain indemnification provisions that address what happens if problems emerge after closing. These clauses determine who bears the risk for post-closing discoveries and how much exposure each party faces. While the purchaser wants the assurances and protections that come from the contract’s indemnification provisions, the seller doesn’t want to make an open-ended, potentially limitless promise that could eviscerate the financial upsides of the transaction and leave them forever on the hook for millions of dollars in possible liability. That is why deal savvy dental practice attorneys usually require that the purchase and sale agreement’s indemnification provisions include “caps” and “baskets” that establish the maximum exposure a seller will face as well as the minimum amount that must be at issue before any indemnification obligations are triggered. Given the significance that these maximums and minimums have for both parties, it is critical that buyers and sellers understand how caps and baskets work and the best ways to protect their respective interests in a dental practice sale. It All Starts With the Seller’s Representations and Warranties In any dental practice sale, the seller makes certain representations and warranties about the practice and its current condition. These disclosures might include assurances that all patient records are accurate, all equipment is in good working order, the practice has no pending lawsuits or liabilities, all taxes have been paid, and certain personnel matters are in order. If any such representations prove to be false, the indemnification provisions give the buyer the right to seek compensation from the seller for any losses incurred. Liability Caps Establish the Seller’s Maximum Indemnification Exposure A liability cap limits the total amount a seller must pay for breaches of representations and warranties. In dental practice transactions, caps can range from 10% on longer transactions to 100% of the purchase price on practices trending below $1,000,000, with 25% to 50% being most common for middle-market acquisitions. Where the parties ultimately land as to that percentage is a factor of each party’s risk tolerance and the practice's characteristics. A well-established practice with meticulous records, abundant goodwill, and comprehensive due diligence might justify a lower cap. Conversely, a practice with a limited or checkered financial history or significant operational complexity might warrant a higher cap to protect the buyer. Most liability caps exclude certain matters for which the seller remains on the hook for an unlimited amount. Such issues can include overt fraud or fundamental misrepresentations regarding the seller's authority to sell the practice or having clear title to assets. Tax obligations, environmental issues, and employee-related liabilities might also receive special treatment with separate, higher caps than provided for other matters. Baskets Are Like Deductibles While caps address maximum liability, baskets establish minimum thresholds before indemnification obligations arise. Think of a basket like a deductible in an insurance policy. Just as an insured is responsible for paying amounts up to the deductible before the insurer’s obligations kick in, a basket establishes the threshold below which the purchaser must bear any costs or liabilities for post-closing problems, even for matters covered by the contract’s indemnification provisions. Dental practice sales typically include one of two basket types: · A “true deductible” basket provides that the buyer absorbs all losses until reaching the threshold amount, after which they are entitled to recover all sums above it. For example, with a $25,000 true deductible basket, if the buyer’s losses total $30,000, the seller pays only $5,000. · A “tipping” basket , sometimes called a dollar-one basket, provides that once the buyer’s losses exceed the designated threshold, the seller pays from dollar one. Using the same example, the seller would pay the entire $30,000 once that threshold is crossed. Basket amounts in dental practice sales typically range from $5,000 to $25,000, depending on deal size. A $500,000 practice might have a $5,000 basket, while a $3 million practice might see a $25,000 threshold, for example. How Caps and Baskets Impact the Parties After Closing These provisions significantly impact post-closing dynamics. A seller who negotiates a low cap and high basket will minimize their exposure, while a buyer who secures a high cap and low basket gains significant protection and reassurance. Since negotiations over indemnification caps and baskets aren’t conducted in a vacuum, a party that secures an advantageous cap and basket arrangement can expect more challenging negotiations when discussing other aspects of the transaction, such as a higher purchase price or less favorable payment terms. Unanticipated liabilities can wreak havoc for dental practice buyers and sellers alike long after the ink has dried on their agreement. Dentists on either side of a practice sale should work closely with experienced legal counsel to negotiate terms that strike an appropriate balance between protection and practicality. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. 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.
Bogus ADA Claims Regarding Dental Practice Websites Are Rampant. Your Lawyer Can Help You Tell the Difference Between a Real Problem and a Real Shakedown. Over 25 years have passed since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) quite literally reshaped the landscape for people with disabilities. From building entrances to parking lots to restrooms to elevators, from hiring and employment opportunities to restaurants, stores, and websites, disabled Americans have far greater access to the same facilities, services, and opportunities as everyone else. Harassment at Best, Extortion at Worst For all the good it has accomplished, however, the ADA has also been abused by opportunistic individuals and attorneys who have used the law in bad faith to shake down small businesses, including dental practices, for alleged violations that have not actually caused any harm or infringed upon any rights afforded by the act. These self-appointed ADA compliance "testers" have filed thousands of nuisance ADA suits that have cost American businesses millions of dollars. According to one analysis, ADA lawsuits have increased by 320% since 2013, with over 4,000 suits filed in 2024 alone. Many plaintiff's law firms file hundreds of cookie-cutter ADA lawsuits each year. One person can visit multiple businesses or websites in a single day solely to identify even the slightest accessibility transgressions in order to generate claims. While these suits can focus on any number of alleged ADA shortcomings, those relating to website accessibility (discussed in detail in this earlier post ) filed by a handful of law firms and serial plaintiffs have earned the scorn of small businesses and practices across the country. That's because these "testers" and the lawyers who represent them specifically target small businesses, as they typically have limited means to defend themselves, may not be able to discern between legitimate and bogus claims, and often see a quick payoff as the path of least resistance. Here’s how the shakedown typically goes down: A plaintiff or their attorney sends the practice a demand letter in which they claim that the practice’s website is inaccessible to people with disabilities (e.g., missing image alt text, inaccessible forms, incompatible with screen readers). They cite a violation of Title III of the ADA. They make a demand for a cash settlement, often ranging from $2,500 to $25,000, alongside a request for accessibility fixes. The business/practice cuts a check in exchange for a release of any ADA claims by that plaintiff related to the website. The business/practice may then receive more demand letters, often from the same firm, on behalf of other plaintiffs who make the same claim, and the extortion continues. Don’t Act Impulsively – Do This Instead All this is not to say that dental practice owners should consider all such claims and demands to be frivolous or ignore their ADA obligations relating to their website. To be sure, a meritorious ADA lawsuit can indeed expose a practice to significant financial and reputational damage. Before reflexively giving in to an ADA demand letter and settling a supposed claim, practice owners should take the following steps: · Don't Panic, But Don't Ignore It. As noted, a demand letter with legalese and ominous language doesn’t mean that you’ve done anything wrong or actually violated the law. While your immediate reaction may include fear, confusion, or anger, don’t act impulsively. By the same token, don’t assume it is a bogus threat; crumble up the letter and throw it in the recycling. Deadlines in these letters are real, and failing to respond appropriately to a viable claim could lead to litigation. · Contact Your Attorney Immediately. This is not a DIY situation. Before responding to the letter or contacting the sender, consult with an attorney experienced in ADA compliance and website accessibility issues. Your lawyer can evaluate the demand letter or complaint, the validity of the claim, and the law firm behind it before formulating an appropriate response. Testers send many cookie-cutter letters that may contain boilerplate allegations of deficiencies that do not actually exist. · Evaluate Your Actual Compliance. Work with your attorney and website accessibility experts to have your website assessed against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) , which courts often reference in ADA website cases. Understanding your site's actual accessibility helps inform whether settlement, remediation, or another approach makes sense and whether you need to take additional steps to avoid future claims. Keep in mind that this isn't just about legal compliance—it's good business. An accessible website serves all patients better and demonstrates your commitment to inclusivity. If you have questions about your business's ADA obligations and how to protect it from accessibility complaints, please call Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. 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. 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 employers and employees alike, in workplaces from restaurants to factories to dental practices, the specter of a visit from ICE, CBP, or other federal immigration forces looms large. Trepidation and fear are common feelings in this perilous climate, exacerbated by uncertainty as to one’s rights and how to respond when militarized agents arrive at a workplace. For dental practice owners, protecting their employees, patients, and business is a top priority, as is doing so in a legal, peaceful, and effective manner that doesn’t make a difficult situation worse. That is why it is so critical that you understand your rights and obligations in the face of such intrusions. While you should absolutely and immediately contact counsel if immigration agents show up at your practice, here is some practical guidance to help keep you and your employees safe. Different Responses to Different Types of ICE Actions Historically, ICE has conducted three types of workplace actions: I-9 audits (Notice of Inspection or “NOI”), which are administrative reviews of employment eligibility verification forms; worksite enforcement operations, which may include arrests; and searches pursuant to a warrant. Unfortunately, these customary practices have recently expanded to include warrantless, legally unauthorized, and sometimes violent entry into workplaces. The type of action the agency takes determines your obligations and your rights. An I-9 audit begins with a formal notice, typically giving you three business days to produce your I-9 forms and supporting documentation. A worksite enforcement operation or raid, however, often comes without warning. Understanding which situation you're facing is the critical first step. When ICE Arrives Without Notice – Keep Calm, Call Your Lawyer, and Ask For Authority If ICE agents appear at your workplace without prior notice, remain calm and follow these essential steps: · Keep calm , and don’t make any quick or impulsive decisions. Politely ask the agents to wait while you contact your attorney. You are not required to let agents enter non-public areas of your workplace without proper legal authority. While agents can enter your reception area or other common spaces as any member of the public could, they cannot access private areas such as treatment rooms, back offices, lunchrooms, or labs without your consent, a valid warrant, or an emergency. · Ask to see credentials and any warrants or legal documents. Scrutinize these thoroughly and understand this crucial distinction: an administrative warrant (Form I-200 or I-205) is not the same as a judicial warrant signed by a judge. Administrative warrants alone do not give ICE the authority to enter your private property or detain individuals. A judicial warrant, however, must be honored, though you should still speak with your lawyer who can help verify that it's properly signed, dated, and identifies the correct location and individuals. · Designate a single point of contact , ideally yourself as practice owner or an office manager, to communicate with the agents. Instruct other employees not to answer questions or provide information without guidance. This prevents confusion and minimizes the chances of miscommunication or escalation. Understanding Your Rights Employers have constitutional rights that apply during ICE encounters. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. As noted, without a judicial warrant or your consent, ICE generally cannot enter private areas of your practice, search filing cabinets or computer systems, or detain employees based solely on their immigration status. You have the right to refuse consent to a search. Exercise that right. If agents don't have a warrant, you can politely but firmly state: "I do not consent to a search of the premises. If you have a warrant signed by a judge, I would like to see it and have my attorney review it." If they have a warrant, verify it carefully to check that the address is correct, the signature is from a federal judge (not an ICE officer), and it's dated recently. Despite the recent rhetoric and actions of ICE agents and officials, you have an absolute right to observe, record, video, and document what's happening and what the agents are doing, so long as you do not interfere with or impede their operations. If ICE does enter your practice, you or your designated representative has the right to, and should, accompany agents to witness their actions. Protecting Your Employees Your employees also have rights, regardless of their immigration status. They have the right to remain silent and do not have to answer questions about their immigration status, where they were born, or how they entered the country. They have the right to refuse to show documents beyond what's necessary to demonstrate identity, unless they're under arrest. They should not lie or present false documents, as this can create additional legal problems. Before an ICE visit occurs, consider holding a "know your rights" training for employees. Inform them that if ICE arrives, they should remain calm, not run, and not present false documents. Provide them with a card that includes information about their rights and the contact information for your practice's attorney. You should never lie to federal agents or provide false information. However, you are not required to volunteer information or answer questions beyond what's legally necessary. If asked about specific employees, you can politely decline to answer and refer agents to your attorney. Once ICE agents leave, immediately document everything that occurred and save any videos or recordings so you can send them to your attorney. Preparing Before ICE Arrives The best time to prepare for an ICE visit is before it happens. Consider the following proactive steps: · Develop a written policy for your practice that designates who will handle ICE encounters, what steps to take, and how to contact your attorney. · Conduct an internal I-9 audit to identify and correct any paperwork errors or gaps. · Train office managers and supervisors on the protocol. Everyone should know not to consent to searches, not to answer questions without guidance, and to remain professional and calm. Post "know your rights" information for employees in common areas. If you have any questions or concerns regarding ICE or immigration enforcement activities at your practice, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. 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.
Selling a dental practice is a lengthy and involved process that involves due diligence, negotiation, drafting, financing, and other elements, culminating in the seller handing over the keys to the business to the buyer. But the parties’ signatures on the final purchase agreement and ancillary documents hardly mean that the now-former owner can ride off into the sunset without a care in the world. That is because the purchaser will want and require the seller to be responsible for any undisclosed or undiscovered problems with the practice they just bought. For this reason, every dental practice purchase agreement will inevitably contain indemnification provisions that address what happens if problems emerge after closing. These clauses determine who bears the risk for post-closing discoveries and how much exposure each party faces. While the purchaser wants the assurances and protections that come from the contract’s indemnification provisions, the seller doesn’t want to make an open-ended, potentially limitless promise that could eviscerate the financial upsides of the transaction and leave them forever on the hook for millions of dollars in possible liability. That is why deal savvy dental practice attorneys usually require that the purchase and sale agreement’s indemnification provisions include “caps” and “baskets” that establish the maximum exposure a seller will face as well as the minimum amount that must be at issue before any indemnification obligations are triggered. Given the significance that these maximums and minimums have for both parties, it is critical that buyers and sellers understand how caps and baskets work and the best ways to protect their respective interests in a dental practice sale. It All Starts With the Seller’s Representations and Warranties In any dental practice sale, the seller makes certain representations and warranties about the practice and its current condition. These disclosures might include assurances that all patient records are accurate, all equipment is in good working order, the practice has no pending lawsuits or liabilities, all taxes have been paid, and certain personnel matters are in order. If any such representations prove to be false, the indemnification provisions give the buyer the right to seek compensation from the seller for any losses incurred. Liability Caps Establish the Seller’s Maximum Indemnification Exposure A liability cap limits the total amount a seller must pay for breaches of representations and warranties. In dental practice transactions, caps can range from 10% on longer transactions to 100% of the purchase price on practices trending below $1,000,000, with 25% to 50% being most common for middle-market acquisitions. Where the parties ultimately land as to that percentage is a factor of each party’s risk tolerance and the practice's characteristics. A well-established practice with meticulous records, abundant goodwill, and comprehensive due diligence might justify a lower cap. Conversely, a practice with a limited or checkered financial history or significant operational complexity might warrant a higher cap to protect the buyer. Most liability caps exclude certain matters for which the seller remains on the hook for an unlimited amount. Such issues can include overt fraud or fundamental misrepresentations regarding the seller's authority to sell the practice or having clear title to assets. Tax obligations, environmental issues, and employee-related liabilities might also receive special treatment with separate, higher caps than provided for other matters. Baskets Are Like Deductibles While caps address maximum liability, baskets establish minimum thresholds before indemnification obligations arise. Think of a basket like a deductible in an insurance policy. Just as an insured is responsible for paying amounts up to the deductible before the insurer’s obligations kick in, a basket establishes the threshold below which the purchaser must bear any costs or liabilities for post-closing problems, even for matters covered by the contract’s indemnification provisions. Dental practice sales typically include one of two basket types: · A “true deductible” basket provides that the buyer absorbs all losses until reaching the threshold amount, after which they are entitled to recover all sums above it. For example, with a $25,000 true deductible basket, if the buyer’s losses total $30,000, the seller pays only $5,000. · A “tipping” basket , sometimes called a dollar-one basket, provides that once the buyer’s losses exceed the designated threshold, the seller pays from dollar one. Using the same example, the seller would pay the entire $30,000 once that threshold is crossed. Basket amounts in dental practice sales typically range from $5,000 to $25,000, depending on deal size. A $500,000 practice might have a $5,000 basket, while a $3 million practice might see a $25,000 threshold, for example. How Caps and Baskets Impact the Parties After Closing These provisions significantly impact post-closing dynamics. A seller who negotiates a low cap and high basket will minimize their exposure, while a buyer who secures a high cap and low basket gains significant protection and reassurance. Since negotiations over indemnification caps and baskets aren’t conducted in a vacuum, a party that secures an advantageous cap and basket arrangement can expect more challenging negotiations when discussing other aspects of the transaction, such as a higher purchase price or less favorable payment terms. Unanticipated liabilities can wreak havoc for dental practice buyers and sellers alike long after the ink has dried on their agreement. Dentists on either side of a practice sale should work closely with experienced legal counsel to negotiate terms that strike an appropriate balance between protection and practicality. Contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky Today If you are a practice owner anticipating a sale or transition, please contact Grogan, Hesse & Uditsky today. 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.
