Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Dentists and Dental Staff in Alabama?

Alabama's non-compete rule is statutory, and it starts from a hostile default: under Alabama Code § 8-1-190(a), every contract restraining a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business is void except as the section allows.

Subsection (b) permits categories, including one for employees: an employee of a commercial entity may agree not to compete within a specified geographic area while the employer carries on a like business there, two years or less presumed reasonable.

So an employment non-compete is not banned outright.

What makes an Alabama employee non-compete complicated is the professional-exemption case law on top of the statute, which has voided covenants restraining the practice of a profession — a physician's, then accountants' — and § 8-1-196 preserves exemptions Alabama law already recognizes.

No Alabama appellate decision we located applies that exemption to a dentist, so the associate-dentist question is unsettled.

Alabama law does not settle where hygienists and assistants fall, either.

The national comparison is in our guide to non-competes for dental staff nationally; the associate's side is in dentist non-compete agreements.

Both.

Alabama Code §§ 8-1-190 to -197 govern: § 8-1-190(a) voids restraints by default, and § 8-1-190(b) lists the exceptions a dental practice is most likely to touch:

• Employee non-competes (b)(4): an employee of a commercial entity may agree not to compete within a specified geographic area while the employer carries on a like business there; two years or less is presumed reasonable.
• Customer non-solicits (b)(5): an employee may agree not to solicit the employer's current customers; 18 months — or as long as post-separation consideration is paid, whichever is greater — is presumed reasonable.
• Sale of goodwill (b)(3): the seller of a business's goodwill (a dental practice) may agree with the buyer not to compete or solicit its customers in a specified area; one year or less is presumed reasonable.
• Dissolution (b)(6): on or in anticipation of dissolving an entity, partners, owners or members may agree that none will carry on a similar commercial activity in the area where it was transacted.

The case law sits on top: Odess v. Taylor (Alabama Supreme Court, 1968) held a physician's non-compete void under the predecessor statute — its exceptions omitted the word "profession", the origin of the professional exemption.

Burkett v. Adams (Alabama Supreme Court, 1978) extended the reasoning to public accountants.

None in the statute.

Alabama's act has no dentist- or healthcare-specific section.

Its only professional provision, § 8-1-196, preserves whatever professional exemptions Alabama law already recognizes.

The exemption comes from the cases, and neither is a dental case: Odess concerned a physician, Burkett public accountants.

Burkett did quote an older Alabama decision listing "a physician, surgeon, dentist, lawyer, or school-teacher" among licensed callings, but the case concerned accountants — so Burkett is not a holding that dentist non-competes are void.

Whether the exemption reaches an associate dentist is genuinely unsettled: no Alabama appellate decision located applies it to a dentist, and Alabama law does not settle whether associate dentists, hygienists or assistants are exempt from non-competes — or bound by them — as professionals.

Treat any flat answer with caution; have Alabama employment counsel read it against current case law.

This is about contract enforceability, not credentials — where an associate stands on dentist licensure in Alabama is a separate track.

Formalities first: an Alabama restrictive covenant must be in writing, signed by all parties, and supported by adequate consideration (§ 8-1-192).

The restraint must also protect a recognized interest.

Alabama's list (§ 8-1-191) expressly names relationships with specific existing or prospective customers, patients, vendors or clients, and the goodwill attached to them; job skills alone are not on it.

A covenant aimed at a staffer's general skills — not at patient relationships and goodwill — protects nothing the statute counts.

Time runs by category: an employee non-compete is presumed reasonable at two years or less, within a specified geographic area; a customer non-solicit at 18 months, or as long as post-separation consideration is paid, whichever is greater; a seller's covenant at one year or less.

A court may reform an overbroad or overlong restraint — but may void it entirely if it does not fit one of the § 8-1-190(b) exceptions at all (§ 8-1-193).

The category you draft to is what keeps the clause alive.

A patient non-solicit rests on its own express statutory category, separate from the employee non-compete.

Section 8-1-190(b)(5) lets an employee agree not to solicit the employer's current customers — 18 months presumed reasonable, or as long as post-separation consideration is paid, whichever is greater — and the protectable-interest list names patients expressly, goodwill included.

The statute's formalities — writing, signatures and adequate consideration (§ 8-1-192) — and its reasonable-time limit apply to a non-solicit as to any covenant under the article.

The exemption decisions described above voided non-competes; this guide's research did not address whether they would reach a non-solicit, so ask Alabama counsel here too.

The mechanics are in our guide to patient and staff non-solicits.

Confidentiality is different: this guide's research does not cover how Alabama treats confidentiality clauses, so do not assume such a clause stands or falls with the covenant — ask Alabama counsel.

The verified route is federal.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act lets the owner of a misappropriated trade secret related to a product or service used in interstate or foreign commerce sue in federal court, and business information — including a patient list — qualifies only if you took reasonable measures to keep it secret and it derives independent economic value from not being generally known.

A DTSA injunction cannot bar someone from taking a new job; conditions must rest on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on what the person knows.

Use the covenants the statute expressly lists.

Selling the practice?

The sale-of-goodwill exception is built for it: the seller may agree with the buyer not to compete or solicit its customers in a specified area while the buyer carries on a like business there — one year presumed reasonable.

The statute does not address whether a dentist seller is also protected by the professional exemption, so have Alabama counsel review that covenant too.

Dissolving an entity?

The owners can agree that none will carry on a similar commercial activity in the area where it did business.

For employment agreements, draft to the statute: name the category, keep the term inside the presumption, define the area by where you actually do business, and anchor the restraint to patient relationships and goodwill.

Get the category wrong and reformation may not save you.

Two more tools carry part of the load: a training repayment agreement — our guide covers how those are built and the state rules around them — and a patient non-solicit paired with a real continuity plan, aimed at the patient relationships and goodwill § 8-1-191 names as protectable.