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
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was signed into law. One may question whether this sprawling piece of legislation deserves to be called “beautiful,” but it undoubtedly earns the “big” in its name, especially for small businesses like dental practices. That is because it contains several provisions that could have a significant impact on the tax obligations of practices and their owners. Most notably, the OBBBA solidifies significant tax reforms and exemptions that were part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Here are seven aspects of the OBBBA that are of particular interest to dental practices and their owners. 1. Permanent Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction The 20 percent small business tax deduction (also known as the section 199a deduction) for sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, is made permanent and extends the amount of income subject to the phase-out rules. Specifically, the income threshold for single taxpayers is expanded by $25,000 and for joint filers by $50,000. The bill also includes a new minimum deduction of $400 for taxpayers with at least $1,000 of qualified business income from one or more actively conducted trades or businesses in which they materially participate. 2. Expanding Section 179 Expensing The bill increases the Small Business Expensing Cap from $1.22 million to $2.5 million. It also brings back and makes permanent “bonus depreciation,” which allows for an immediate write-off of 100 percent (versus 40 percent) of the cost of new qualified property acquired after January 19, 2025, such as equipment, vehicles, and software. 3. Qualified Small Business Stock The OBBBA modifies the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) provisions contained in Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code by increasing the amounts that can be excluded from gross income, raising the size limit for QSBS investments, and shortening the holding period so investors can take advantage of the provision's benefits earlier than before. Specifically: For QSBS issued after OBBBA's July 4, 2025, effective date, the per-taxpayer gain exclusion cap for the sale of QSBS is raised from $10 million to $15 million, with that threshold being adjusted for inflation starting in 2027. The exclusion amount will now be $15 million or 10x the basis in the stock, whichever is greater. The aggregate gross assets a C corporation may have for its stock to qualify as a qualified small business is now $75 million – up from $50 million - for stock issued after July 4, 2025, with the new limit to be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2027. For QSBS acquired after July 4, 2025, the holding period required to qualify for the QSBS gain exclusion drops from five years to three years. After three years, a 50% exclusion is available, increasing to 75% after four years, and reaching 100% exclusion after five years. 4. Enhancing the Employer-provided Childcare Credit Section 45F of the tax code, which is designed to incentivize businesses to invest in childcare, now provides qualifying small businesses (gross receipts of $25 million or less for the preceding five years) with a maximum tax credit of up to $600,000 per year on up to 50 percent of qualified childcare expenses provided to employees. This credit is effective beginning in 2026. 5. Employer-provided Student Loan Repayment Assistance The OBBBA makes the employer-provided student loan repayment benefit permanent, allowing employers to contribute up to $5,250 per year towards employees' student loans, tax-free for both the employer and employee. This annual limit will be adjusted for inflation starting in 2026, ensuring the benefit keeps pace with rising education costs. 6. Permanent, Inflation-Indexed Estate & Gift Tax Exemption The OBBBA permanently increases the unified federal estate and lifetime gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual ($30 million for married couples), indexed for inflation starting in 2026. If the TCJA’s exemption provisions had expired, the threshold would have dropped to approximately $7 million per individual. This stability allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to accelerate lifetime gifting and fund trusts efficiently. Techniques such as SLATs (Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts) are now more powerful planning tools given the increased exemption scope. The generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption is now also aligned with the $15 million per individual exemption, also indexed for inflation. 7. SALT Deduction Raised – For Some The law increased the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000; however, this cap is not universally available. If your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds certain thresholds, the $40,000 cap will be phased out. For single filers, the phase-out starts at $250,000 MAGI. For joint filers, the phase-out starts at $500,000 MAGI. The deduction is reduced by 30% of the amount exceeding these thresholds until it reaches the original $10,000 cap for the highest earners. The income thresholds for the phase-out will increase by 1% annually from 2026 to 2029. If you have questions about the OBBBA and what it means for you and your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Dental practices that choose to lease rather than purchase and own their business location have several options for setting up shop. While plenty of practices operate out of stand-alone buildings, even more lease space in retail shopping centers, professional buildings, or office complexes. The terms of that lease – from the rent to the term to build-out, termination, or assignment rights – can have an outsized impact on the growth and success of a practice. But one lease provision, in particular, can determine whether your practice faces stiff and unwanted competition from another practice just steps from your office’s front door: the exclusivity (or exclusive use) clause. What Is An Exclusive Use Provision in a Dental Practice Lease? As the name implies, an exclusive use clause in a lease limits the landlord’s ability to lease space in the same complex or building to another tenant engaged in the same type of business. Think about why you would choose a particular location for your practice. Aside from the features of the space itself, it is likely because of favorable characteristics like foot traffic, accessibility, parking, and the lack of other similar practices in the surrounding area. If, after conducting demographic research and spending time and resources selecting the perfect location for your practice, your landlord could wipe out those efforts with the stroke of a pen by leasing space nearby to a competing practice, it could be a devastating blow. Negotiating an Exclusive Use Provision Most commercial leases are initially prepared by the landlord. As such, they are unsurprisingly skewed in favor of the landlord’s interests. It is unlikely that a landlord would voluntarily and preemptively tie their hands by limiting the pool of potential tenants. That is why the burden is usually on the tenant to push for and negotiate an exclusivity provision. When negotiating the terms of your dental practice lease (which you should only do with the help and counsel of an experienced attorney), the goal will be to get your landlord to agree not to rent space to other dental practice tenants. If your landlord refuses to limit their ability to lease space to other dentists generally and you nevertheless want to pursue the desired space, you may be able to be more specific and agree to a provision that restricts the landlord’s ability to lease to a particular competing specialty such as pediatric dentists, orthodontists, periodontists, etc. Protecting Yourself From a Landlord’s Breach of an Exclusivity Clause The contracts most likely to be broken are those with few, if any, consequences for violating their terms. That is why the value of an exclusivity provision is directly related to the price that the landlord will pay for entering into a lease with a competitor despite the clause in your lease. Given the potentially catastrophic impact of having a neighbor in the same building siphoning off your patients and diluting your hard-earned goodwill, that price should be significant. Several different penalties can serve to protect your practice from a breach of an exclusivity provision: Rent Abatement. One of the most straightforward and commonly used remedies is rent abatement. If the landlord allows a competing business to open in violation of the exclusive use clause, an abatement penalty can entitle you to a full or partial reduction in base rent or other charges. This abatement typically remains in effect until the violation is cured or the competing tenant leaves. The lease should specify the amount of rent to be abated (e.g., 50% of base rent) and whether the abatement applies to other charges such as common area maintenance fees or percentage rent. Termination Right. A strong lease will give the tenant the option to terminate the lease entirely if the landlord fails to cure the violation within a specified period after notice. This is a significant penalty that underscores the seriousness of the exclusive use protection. Liquidated Damages. Liquidated damages provide a pre-agreed amount that the landlord must pay if it breaches the exclusive use clause. This can be calculated based on the tenant’s projected loss in revenue, estimated lost profits, or some other measurable metric tied to the tenant’s business performance. Injunctive Relief. Ideally, the lease should give you the right to seek injunctive relief from a court to stop the violation of the exclusive use provision, such as requiring the landlord to terminate the lease or evict the competing tenant. Getting a landlord to agree to a strong exclusivity provision with equally strong penalties for breaches of it requires deft and persuasive negotiating skills, and is yet another reason why dental practice owners should never enter into or negotiate a lease without the assistance of experienced counsel. If you are considering a lease for your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Dental Practice Act (the “Act”), which Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to soon sign into law, will make it easier for newly minted dental professionals to begin practicing while their license applications are pending. The amendments, which would take effect on January 1, 2026, establish the following criteria under which license-pending dentists and dental hygienists can practice under the delegation of a licensed general dentist: The Applicant has completed and passed the IDFPR-approved licensure exam and presented their employer with an official written notification indicating such; The Applicant has completed and submitted the application for licensure; and The Applicant has submitted the required licensure fee. Once obtained, authorization for dentists and dental hygienists to practice under these provisions can be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following: The Applicant receives their full-practice license; IDFPR provides notification that the Applicant’s application has been denied; IDFPR requests that the Applicant stop practicing as a license-pending dentist/dental hygienist until the Department makes an official decision to grant or deny a license to practice; or Six months have passed since the official date of the Applicant’s passage of the licensure exam (i.e., the date on the formal written notification of such from the Department). IDFPR has yet to post anything on its website regarding these amendments, but we will provide an update if and when it does. If you have any questions about these new provisions regarding the employment of license-pending dentists and hygienists, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) was signed into law. One may question whether this sprawling piece of legislation deserves to be called “beautiful,” but it undoubtedly earns the “big” in its name, especially for small businesses like dental practices. That is because it contains several provisions that could have a significant impact on the tax obligations of practices and their owners. Most notably, the OBBBA solidifies significant tax reforms and exemptions that were part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Here are seven aspects of the OBBBA that are of particular interest to dental practices and their owners. 1. Permanent Qualified Business Income (QBI) Deduction The 20 percent small business tax deduction (also known as the section 199a deduction) for sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-corporations, and LLCs, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2025, is made permanent and extends the amount of income subject to the phase-out rules. Specifically, the income threshold for single taxpayers is expanded by $25,000 and for joint filers by $50,000. The bill also includes a new minimum deduction of $400 for taxpayers with at least $1,000 of qualified business income from one or more actively conducted trades or businesses in which they materially participate. 2. Expanding Section 179 Expensing The bill increases the Small Business Expensing Cap from $1.22 million to $2.5 million. It also brings back and makes permanent “bonus depreciation,” which allows for an immediate write-off of 100 percent (versus 40 percent) of the cost of new qualified property acquired after January 19, 2025, such as equipment, vehicles, and software. 3. Qualified Small Business Stock The OBBBA modifies the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) provisions contained in Section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code by increasing the amounts that can be excluded from gross income, raising the size limit for QSBS investments, and shortening the holding period so investors can take advantage of the provision's benefits earlier than before. Specifically: For QSBS issued after OBBBA's July 4, 2025, effective date, the per-taxpayer gain exclusion cap for the sale of QSBS is raised from $10 million to $15 million, with that threshold being adjusted for inflation starting in 2027. The exclusion amount will now be $15 million or 10x the basis in the stock, whichever is greater. The aggregate gross assets a C corporation may have for its stock to qualify as a qualified small business is now $75 million – up from $50 million - for stock issued after July 4, 2025, with the new limit to be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2027. For QSBS acquired after July 4, 2025, the holding period required to qualify for the QSBS gain exclusion drops from five years to three years. After three years, a 50% exclusion is available, increasing to 75% after four years, and reaching 100% exclusion after five years. 4. Enhancing the Employer-provided Childcare Credit Section 45F of the tax code, which is designed to incentivize businesses to invest in childcare, now provides qualifying small businesses (gross receipts of $25 million or less for the preceding five years) with a maximum tax credit of up to $600,000 per year on up to 50 percent of qualified childcare expenses provided to employees. This credit is effective beginning in 2026. 5. Employer-provided Student Loan Repayment Assistance The OBBBA makes the employer-provided student loan repayment benefit permanent, allowing employers to contribute up to $5,250 per year towards employees' student loans, tax-free for both the employer and employee. This annual limit will be adjusted for inflation starting in 2026, ensuring the benefit keeps pace with rising education costs. 6. Permanent, Inflation-Indexed Estate & Gift Tax Exemption The OBBBA permanently increases the unified federal estate and lifetime gift tax exemption to $15 million per individual ($30 million for married couples), indexed for inflation starting in 2026. If the TCJA’s exemption provisions had expired, the threshold would have dropped to approximately $7 million per individual. This stability allows ultra-high-net-worth individuals to accelerate lifetime gifting and fund trusts efficiently. Techniques such as SLATs (Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts) are now more powerful planning tools given the increased exemption scope. The generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax exemption is now also aligned with the $15 million per individual exemption, also indexed for inflation. 7. SALT Deduction Raised – For Some The law increased the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap from $10,000 to $40,000; however, this cap is not universally available. If your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeds certain thresholds, the $40,000 cap will be phased out. For single filers, the phase-out starts at $250,000 MAGI. For joint filers, the phase-out starts at $500,000 MAGI. The deduction is reduced by 30% of the amount exceeding these thresholds until it reaches the original $10,000 cap for the highest earners. The income thresholds for the phase-out will increase by 1% annually from 2026 to 2029. If you have questions about the OBBBA and what it means for you and your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Dental practices that choose to lease rather than purchase and own their business location have several options for setting up shop. While plenty of practices operate out of stand-alone buildings, even more lease space in retail shopping centers, professional buildings, or office complexes. The terms of that lease – from the rent to the term to build-out, termination, or assignment rights – can have an outsized impact on the growth and success of a practice. But one lease provision, in particular, can determine whether your practice faces stiff and unwanted competition from another practice just steps from your office’s front door: the exclusivity (or exclusive use) clause. What Is An Exclusive Use Provision in a Dental Practice Lease? As the name implies, an exclusive use clause in a lease limits the landlord’s ability to lease space in the same complex or building to another tenant engaged in the same type of business. Think about why you would choose a particular location for your practice. Aside from the features of the space itself, it is likely because of favorable characteristics like foot traffic, accessibility, parking, and the lack of other similar practices in the surrounding area. If, after conducting demographic research and spending time and resources selecting the perfect location for your practice, your landlord could wipe out those efforts with the stroke of a pen by leasing space nearby to a competing practice, it could be a devastating blow. Negotiating an Exclusive Use Provision Most commercial leases are initially prepared by the landlord. As such, they are unsurprisingly skewed in favor of the landlord’s interests. It is unlikely that a landlord would voluntarily and preemptively tie their hands by limiting the pool of potential tenants. That is why the burden is usually on the tenant to push for and negotiate an exclusivity provision. When negotiating the terms of your dental practice lease (which you should only do with the help and counsel of an experienced attorney), the goal will be to get your landlord to agree not to rent space to other dental practice tenants. If your landlord refuses to limit their ability to lease space to other dentists generally and you nevertheless want to pursue the desired space, you may be able to be more specific and agree to a provision that restricts the landlord’s ability to lease to a particular competing specialty such as pediatric dentists, orthodontists, periodontists, etc. Protecting Yourself From a Landlord’s Breach of an Exclusivity Clause The contracts most likely to be broken are those with few, if any, consequences for violating their terms. That is why the value of an exclusivity provision is directly related to the price that the landlord will pay for entering into a lease with a competitor despite the clause in your lease. Given the potentially catastrophic impact of having a neighbor in the same building siphoning off your patients and diluting your hard-earned goodwill, that price should be significant. Several different penalties can serve to protect your practice from a breach of an exclusivity provision: Rent Abatement. One of the most straightforward and commonly used remedies is rent abatement. If the landlord allows a competing business to open in violation of the exclusive use clause, an abatement penalty can entitle you to a full or partial reduction in base rent or other charges. This abatement typically remains in effect until the violation is cured or the competing tenant leaves. The lease should specify the amount of rent to be abated (e.g., 50% of base rent) and whether the abatement applies to other charges such as common area maintenance fees or percentage rent. Termination Right. A strong lease will give the tenant the option to terminate the lease entirely if the landlord fails to cure the violation within a specified period after notice. This is a significant penalty that underscores the seriousness of the exclusive use protection. Liquidated Damages. Liquidated damages provide a pre-agreed amount that the landlord must pay if it breaches the exclusive use clause. This can be calculated based on the tenant’s projected loss in revenue, estimated lost profits, or some other measurable metric tied to the tenant’s business performance. Injunctive Relief. Ideally, the lease should give you the right to seek injunctive relief from a court to stop the violation of the exclusive use provision, such as requiring the landlord to terminate the lease or evict the competing tenant. Getting a landlord to agree to a strong exclusivity provision with equally strong penalties for breaches of it requires deft and persuasive negotiating skills, and is yet another reason why dental practice owners should never enter into or negotiate a lease without the assistance of experienced counsel. If you are considering a lease for your practice, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
Recent amendments to the Illinois Dental Practice Act (the “Act”), which Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to soon sign into law, will make it easier for newly minted dental professionals to begin practicing while their license applications are pending. The amendments, which would take effect on January 1, 2026, establish the following criteria under which license-pending dentists and dental hygienists can practice under the delegation of a licensed general dentist: The Applicant has completed and passed the IDFPR-approved licensure exam and presented their employer with an official written notification indicating such; The Applicant has completed and submitted the application for licensure; and The Applicant has submitted the required licensure fee. Once obtained, authorization for dentists and dental hygienists to practice under these provisions can be terminated upon the occurrence of any of the following: The Applicant receives their full-practice license; IDFPR provides notification that the Applicant’s application has been denied; IDFPR requests that the Applicant stop practicing as a license-pending dentist/dental hygienist until the Department makes an official decision to grant or deny a license to practice; or Six months have passed since the official date of the Applicant’s passage of the licensure exam (i.e., the date on the formal written notification of such from the Department). IDFPR has yet to post anything on its website regarding these amendments, but we will provide an update if and when it does. If you have any questions about these new provisions regarding the employment of license-pending dentists and hygienists, please contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky today at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for your free initial consultation. We focus a substantial part of our practice on providing exceptional legal services for dentists and dental practices, as well as orthodontists, periodontists, endodontists, pediatric dentists, and oral surgeons. We bring unique insights and deep commitment to protecting the interests of dental professionals and their practices and welcome the opportunity to work with you. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise dentists and other business owners in the Chicago area. Jordan grew up in a dental family, with his father, grandfather, and sister each owning their own dental practices, and this blend of legal, business, and personal experience provides Jordan with unique insight into his clients’ needs, concerns, and goals.
