Patient and Staff Non-Solicitation Clauses for Dental Practices

A non-compete restricts where a departing employee may work — how close, in what radius, in what kind of practice.

A non-solicit restricts who they may contact.

Someone bound by a non-solicit can take a job at the practice down the road or open their own office; they just cannot actively go after your patient panel or your team while they do it.

On the federal side, there is no rule banning employee non-competes: the Federal Trade Commission's 2024 Non-Compete Clause Rule was set aside in court and never took effect, and in a final rule published February 12, 2026 the agency removed it from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Which of these clauses a state allows is decided by state law, as of this guide's October 2026 check.

That gap is what makes the non-solicit a middle ground for a practice.

Minnesota's non-compete ban expressly does not cover non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality or trade-secret agreements, or agreements restricting the use of client lists — and it is not the only state structured that way, as the state-by-state section below shows.

California is the sharp edge.

Business and Professions Code 16600 voids every contract that restrains anyone from a lawful profession, trade or business, unless a statutory exception applies — and, as the next section shows, courts have applied that rule to clauses labeled "non-solicit" too.

The non-solicit is one clause in a wider package.

What the rest of an associate agreement should contain is its own topic; here, the non-solicit clauses get their own treatment.

A patient non-solicit is your answer to the departing clinician who calls every patient of record and invites them to follow.

It binds the clinician, not the patient — the patient's right to choose a provider is the interest statutes like Colorado's protect (see below) — so the enforceable question is only what the departing clinician may do.

Narrow definitions are what hold up.

South Dakota's practitioner rule does not reach provisions barring a practitioner from soliciting current patients of the former employer, so long as they meet the general geographic and time limits — and it reads "soliciting" as a targeted affirmative act to convince a patient to transfer care.

The cleanest carve-out is inbound contact.

Under Virginia's statutory definition, a covenant not to compete cannot restrict an employee from serving a customer of the employer if the employee did not initiate contact with or solicit them — so a patient who calls the departing dentist unprompted has not been solicited.

Washington ties the clause to the relationship itself: a permitted nonsolicitation agreement there covers only customers the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship with.

And the label is not what controls — an agreement that directly or indirectly bars the employee from accepting business from a customer, patient or client is not a non-solicit in Washington at all; it is treated as a non-compete.

New Mexico's practitioner non-compete law leaves room for exactly this drafting: it does not limit non-solicitation provisions covering patients and employees for one year or less after employment ends.

The trap is dressing a non-compete up as a non-solicit.

The clause struck down in Edwards v. Arthur Andersen barred the employee, for a year after leaving, from "soliciting" — defined by the agreement as providing professional services to — any client of the former office, and the court held the agreement invalid because it restrained his ability to practice his profession.

That is the rule in California: non-competition agreements are invalid even if narrowly drawn, unless a statutory exception applies — and the court left open whether a trade-secret exception exists.

Patient-choice rules can also reach clauses that never mention solicitation.

Under Colorado SB 25-083, a covenant is deemed to restrict the practice of dentistry if it prohibits or materially restricts a departing provider from telling patients they treated that the provider continues to practice, where and how to reach them, or that the patient has the right to choose a provider — and covenants restricting the practice of dentistry are void in Colorado regardless of income.

Maryland runs the other way: on a patient's request, the employer of a licensed direct-patient-care employee earning over $350,000 must tell the patient the new location where the former employee will be practicing.

A staff non-solicit stops a departing employee from recruiting your team — the associate who leaves and takes two assistants and a front-desk hire along, or the departing office manager who tries to rebuild your front office at their next job.

Oklahoma addresses these clauses head-on: since November 1, 2013, a clause barring an employee from soliciting the business's employees has been treated as not a restraint from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business, so staff non-solicits are allowed there.

Where earnings floors exist, they decide clause by clause.

Illinois bars non-solicits unless the employee earns more than $45,000 a year — rising to $47,500 on January 1, 2027 — so the clause that fits an associate can be void for an assistant earning under the floor.

Run each role's pay before you hand out the same paper.

Patient-list terms are their own tool, separate from the non-compete question.

Maryland's non-compete ban does not reach agreements about the taking or use of a client or patient list — under that statute, the ban and the list restriction are different clauses.

The federal route is the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

It lets the owner of a misappropriated trade secret related to a product or service in interstate commerce sue in federal court, and business information — including compilations such as a patient list — is a trade secret only if the owner took reasonable measures to keep it secret and it derives independent economic value from not being generally known.

The remedy has a ceiling that matters here: a DTSA injunction cannot prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship, and conditions on the new job must be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation, not merely on the information the person knows.

Non-solicit rules are state rules, and they point in opposite directions in different places.

The states below are the ones this guide's research verified — keep your state in the same sentence as any of them, because none of these rules travel.

The opposite group matters just as much, because it is where the tool keeps working even for practices that cannot use a non-compete:

• Minnesota. The non-compete ban does not cover non-solicitation agreements, confidentiality or trade-secret agreements, or agreements restricting the use of client lists.
• Utah. The statute's definition of a "non-compete agreement" excludes nonsolicitation agreements — and nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements too.
• Oklahoma. A former employee may work in the same or a similar business as long as they do not directly solicit the practice's established customers, and contract terms to the contrary are void — a no-direct-solicitation arrangement is what remains, and staff non-solicits are allowed.
• New Mexico. The practitioner non-compete law does not limit non-solicitation provisions covering patients and employees for one year or less after employment ends.
• South Dakota. The practitioner rule does not reach patient non-solicits that meet the general geographic and time limits.

If your state is not on either list, this guide has not verified its rule — do not assume your clause is safe or void.

Confirm with employment counsel before you rely on one.

For the non-compete half of the question, the state-by-state rules live in our guide to non-competes.

Whatever your non-solicit says, patient-protection duties run in parallel.

A contract can restrict who a departing clinician contacts; it cannot suspend what board rules and professional ethics expect when treatment is underway and the dentist walks out.

California.

Business and Professions Code 1680(u) makes it unprofessional conduct for a California dental licensee to abandon a patient — without written notice that treatment is to be discontinued, and before the patient has ample opportunity to secure the services of another dentist or hygienist.

ADA members.

The ADA Code of Professional Conduct (2.F) says that once a dentist has undertaken a course of treatment, the dentist should not discontinue it without giving the patient adequate notice and the opportunity to obtain the services of another dentist.

The ADA Code is an ethics code for ADA members, not state law.

Records.

ADA Code 1.B requires dentists to safeguard patient record confidentiality and, on request of a patient or another dental practitioner, to provide any information, in accordance with applicable law, that will be beneficial for the patient's future treatment.

Texas.

Board rule 22 TAC 108.8 treats dental records as the sole property of the dentist who performs the service, with ownership of original records transferable as the rule provides.

A dentist who leaves a practice — including by termination of employment — must maintain their records, make a written transfer of records to the succeeding dentist, or make a written agreement for the maintenance of records, and must notify the State Board of Dental Examiners in writing within 15 days of a transfer or maintenance agreement.

Texas also allows a transfer-of-records agreement to be made at any time in an employment relationship and to cover future dental records — so the clean fix is up front: an associate agreement can assign record ownership to the practice owner from day one.

HIPAA.

A covered entity — the practice — may use or disclose protected health information for its own treatment, payment, or health care operations.

What this guide's research did not verify is whether a "your dentist has left" letter clears HIPAA, so run any patient-notification letter past your compliance advisor or attorney before you send it.

A non-solicit earns its keep in the definitions.

These are the drafting moves the verified rules point to:

1. Define solicitation as conduct. South Dakota's reading — a targeted affirmative act to convince a patient to transfer care — is the model. A clause that defines "solicitation" as providing services to any of your patients or clients is a non-compete wearing a label, and Edwards shows how that ends.
2. Carve out inbound contact. Say expressly that the clause does not reach a patient who initiates contact on their own — the treatment Virginia's statute already gives unsolicited customers.
3. Tie the scope to real relationships. Washington permits restricting only customers the employee established or substantially developed a direct relationship with — so scope the clause to the patients the associate actually treated.
4. Keep the term short. New Mexico's safe harbor covers patient and employee non-solicits of one year or less; a longer tail invites the reasonableness fight you do not need.
5. Handle the formalities. Illinois voids non-solicits unless you advise the employee in writing to consult an attorney and give at least 14 calendar days to review; Colorado requires notice in a separate signed document before the offer is accepted. Springing a clause at orientation can void it outright.
6. Check pay per role. Illinois's $45,000 floor and Colorado's 60% threshold for customer non-solicits both turn on the individual employee's earnings, not on the practice's.
7. Build the trade-secret file in parallel. Access-controlled logins, confidentiality terms, and a patient list nobody exports are what make the list protectable — the Defend Trade Secrets Act asks what measures you took and what you can show.

Then have employment counsel in your state read it before anyone signs: this guide verified the rules above, and other states have their own.

Keep the outcome in proportion, too — a clause is a backstop, not a retention strategy.

The hiring and pay decisions that do that work are the ground our dental hiring hub covers from the same employer side.