Death Knell For Non-Competes? FTC Announces New Proposed Rule That Would Ban Them Once and For All.
Jordan Uditsky • February 1, 2023
For decades, businesses of all stripes and across all industries and professions – including dental practices - have used non-competition agreements to limit the ability of former employees to go head-to-head against their former employers. For just as long, courts and state legislatures across the country have struggled to define the acceptable scope of such provisions. They have looked at these contractual arrangements with increasing skepticism insofar as they infringe on foundational principles of fair competition and the right of individuals to make a living in their chosen occupation or profession. Soon, however, the uncertainty and lack of clarity regarding the validity and enforceability of non-competes may be a thing of the past.
On January 5, 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a new proposed rule that would effectively ban all future and existing non-competition agreements. The rule would deem non-competes an “unfair method of competition” and thus prohibited under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If finalized in its current form, the proposed rule would generally prohibit all employers from using non-compete clauses. Specifically, the rule would make it illegal for an employer to:
- enter into or attempt to enter into a non-competition agreement with a worker;
- maintain a non-competition agreement with a worker; or
- represent to a worker, under certain circumstances, that the worker is subject to a non-competition agreement.
Rule Would Apply To All Workers, Including Independent Contractors
The proposed all-encompassing ban on non-competes covers all types of workers regardless of their employment classification and whether they are paid or unpaid. The rule “would clarify that the term ‘worker’ includes an employee, individual classified as an independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, or sole proprietor who provides a service to a client or customer.”
Non-Solicitation and Non-Disclosure Agreements Not Implicated
People often use the term “non-compete” interchangeably for three related but distinct limitations on future business and employment activities. But non-competition provisions are very different from non-solicitation and non-disclosure clauses, and the rule would treat them as such.
The proposed rule defines a “non-compete clause” as “a contractual term between an employer and a worker that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.” The rule clarifies that the definition of a non-compete clause “would generally not include other types of restrictive employment covenants—such as non-disclosure agreements (“NDAs”) and client or customer non-solicitation agreements—because these covenants generally do not prevent a worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person or operating a business after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer.”
However, the rule provides that a provision that purports to be something other than a non-compete could be deemed to be one, and thus prohibited, “where they are so unusually broad in scope that they function as such.” Accordingly, “whether a contractual provision is a non-compete clause would depend not on what the provision is called, but how the provision functions.”
Employer Obligations Regarding Existing Non-Competes
As noted, the proposed rule would render all existing non-competes void and unenforceable and require employers to rescind existing non-competes no later than the rule’s compliance date, which has yet to be determined. Additionally, employers will need to provide each employee subject to an existing non-compete with notice that it has been rescinded and may not be enforced against the worker. Specifically, the employer would need to:
- provide the notice to the worker in an individualized communication;
- provide the notice on paper or in a digital format such as, for example, an email or text message;
- provide the notice to the worker within 45 days of rescinding the non-compete clause; and
- provide the notice to workers who currently work for the employer and those who formerly worked for the employer if the employer has the worker’s contact information readily available.
The proposed rule contains model language for the required rescission notice.
Exception for Non-Competes Related to Purchase and Sale of a Business
One notable exception to the proposed ban on non-competes involves those entered into as part of the purchase or sale of a business. Specifically, the rule provides that it shall not apply to:
a non-compete clause that is entered into by a person who is selling a business entity or otherwise disposing of all of the person’s ownership interest in the business entity, or by a person who is selling all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets, when the person restricted by the non-compete clause is a substantial owner of, or substantial member or substantial partner in, the business entity at the time the person enters into the non-compete clause.
It is unclear what the rule will look like in its final form and when it will become effective. What is clear is that the end appears to be near for non-competes, and dental practice owners should be prepared for that likelihood.
If you have questions or concerns about the FTC’s proposed rule, please call Grogan Hesse & Uditsky at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation.
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.
