A non-compete agreement prevents a departing employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business for a specified period within a defined geographic area. To be enforceable in Illinois, the agreement must comply with the Freedom to Work Act: the employee must earn at least $75,000 annually, must receive a 14-day advance review period before signing, and must be advised in writing to consult an attorney. Agreements that fail any of these requirements are void.

Beyond the statutory requirements, Illinois courts also evaluate whether the non-compete protects a legitimate business interest (trade secrets, confidential information, or near-permanent customer relationships), whether the scope is reasonable in duration (typically 1–2 years) and geography (tied to actual market territory, not the entire country), and whether the restriction imposes an undue hardship on the employee’s ability to earn a living.

We draft non-compete agreements that meet all statutory and common law requirements while providing maximum protection for your business. Every agreement is tailored to the employee’s role, access to confidential information, and client relationships — not copied from a template.

Non-solicitation agreements are often more practical and more enforceable than non-competes. They do not prevent the employee from working in the industry — they prevent the employee from taking your clients and your employees with them. Under the Freedom to Work Act, non-solicitation agreements require the employee to earn at least $45,000 annually (lower threshold than non-competes), plus the same 14-day advance review and attorney consultation advisement.

We draft two distinct types: Non-solicitation of clients/customers — preventing the departing employee from actively soliciting clients they served during employment. We define “solicitation” specifically (direct outreach, not simply accepting business that comes to them independently) and limit the restriction to clients with whom the employee had a material relationship during a defined look-back period. Non-solicitation of employees — preventing the departing employee from recruiting your staff to join them at a competitor. This protects your talent investment and prevents organized departures that destabilize teams.

As the FTC non-compete ban remains unresolved at the federal level, non-solicitation agreements have become an increasingly important alternative for protecting client relationships and talent without the enforceability risks associated with traditional non-competes.

Trade secret protection does not depend on a non-compete — it exists independently under both the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (ITSA) and the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). But having a well-drafted confidentiality agreement (NDA) strengthens your position significantly by defining what constitutes confidential information, putting the employee on notice of their obligations, and making it easier to prove misappropriation if the employee takes proprietary information to a competitor.

We draft confidentiality and trade secret protection agreements that identify protected information with specificity (customer lists, pricing strategies, proprietary processes, technical data, business plans), establish handling and return obligations during and after employment, include data deletion and device return requirements for departing employees, comply with the DTSA’s required whistleblower immunity notice (18 U.S.C. § 1833(b)), and survive termination regardless of the reason for separation.

Unlike non-competes, confidentiality agreements have no salary threshold under the Freedom to Work Act and are enforceable for employees at all compensation levels. For many employers, a strong NDA combined with a non-solicitation agreement provides more reliable protection than a non-compete alone.

When a departing employee violates a non-compete or begins soliciting your clients, speed matters. By the time a case reaches trial, the damage is already done — the clients are gone, the trade secrets are compromised, and the competitive advantage is lost. That is why restrictive covenant enforcement typically begins with emergency injunctive relief.

We pursue temporary restraining orders (TROs) — obtained ex parte (without the other side present) in urgent cases, typically within days — and preliminary injunctions requiring a hearing but providing longer-term relief while the case is pending. To obtain injunctive relief, we must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm that cannot be remedied by money damages alone, that the balance of hardships favors the employer, and that the injunction serves the public interest.

Under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, courts can also issue ex parte seizure orders to prevent dissemination of trade secrets in extraordinary circumstances. We coordinate enforcement actions in both state and federal court depending on the claims involved and the strategic advantages of each forum.

When a key employee resigns — particularly to join a competitor — the first 72 hours are critical. Did they download files before leaving? Have they already contacted your clients? Did they recruit other employees? The answers to these questions determine whether you have a breach of contract claim, a trade secret misappropriation claim, or both.

We help employers respond immediately to high-risk departures: conducting forensic review of the employee’s recent email, file access, and download activity, sending cease-and-desist letters to the departing employee and their new employer, issuing litigation hold notices to preserve evidence, evaluating existing agreements to determine which restrictions are enforceable and which are not, and making the strategic decision about whether to pursue injunctive relief, negotiate a resolution, or both.

Not every departure requires litigation. Sometimes a well-drafted cease-and-desist letter from an attorney is sufficient to stop the behavior. We assess the situation and recommend the approach that best protects your business interests at the lowest cost.

The severance agreement is often your last opportunity to secure or reinforce restrictive covenants. If the departing employee never signed a non-compete at hire, the severance agreement can include one — with the severance payment serving as consideration. If the employee has an existing non-compete, the severance agreement can reaffirm it and potentially extend or broaden the restrictions in exchange for additional consideration.

The Freedom to Work Act requirements apply fully to restrictive covenants entered into at separation: $75,000 threshold for non-competes, $45,000 for non-solicitation, 14-day advance review, and attorney consultation advisement. We coordinate severance-stage restrictive covenants with the broader severance agreement to ensure both the release of claims and the post-employment restrictions are enforceable.

This work integrates directly with our employer severance services and contract drafting services.

If your non-compete agreements were drafted before January 1, 2022, they almost certainly do not comply with the Freedom to Work Act. Even agreements drafted after 2022 may contain defects — missing the 14-day advance notice provision, failing to include the attorney consultation advisement, or applying non-competes to employees below the $75,000 salary threshold.

We conduct comprehensive audits of your existing restrictive covenant agreements and identify which agreements are currently enforceable, which are defective and need to be replaced, which employees are below the salary threshold and cannot be subject to non-competes or non-solicitation agreements, where you have key employees with no restrictions at all, and whether your onboarding process complies with the Act’s procedural requirements (14-day advance review, attorney advisement).

After the audit, we provide a prioritized remediation plan — starting with the highest-risk employees (those with access to trade secrets and client relationships who currently have defective or no agreements) and working through the full employee population.

Sometimes you are on the other side of the equation: you have hired a talented employee away from a competitor, and now that competitor is threatening to enforce a non-compete. You need to know whether the restriction is actually enforceable, whether the employee is at risk, and whether your company could face liability for tortious interference with the former employer’s contract.

We defend employers who have hired employees subject to restrictive covenants by analyzing the agreement for Freedom to Work Act compliance (is the salary threshold met? was the 14-day notice provided?), evaluating whether the scope is overbroad and likely unenforceable, assessing whether the employee’s new role actually competes with the former employer’s business, responding to cease-and-desist letters and negotiating resolutions, and defending against TRO and injunction motions in court.

Because we draft and enforce non-competes for employers, we know exactly which arguments work and which do not — and we apply that knowledge when defending against another employer’s enforcement action.