- Consumer's Choice Award 2019
- Consumer's Choice Award 2020
- Consumer's Choice Award 2021
- Consumer's Choice Award 2022
- Consumer's Choice Award 2023
- Consumer's Choice Award 2024
Frankfort Law Group helps Illinois businesses in Elk Grove Village and Cook County understand and implement noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements that protect client relationships, confidential information, and goodwill. Our business and corporate practice focuses on practical legal drafting and defense to reduce risk and support company goals. We work with employers to create tailored agreements that fit the business, align with Illinois law, and are more likely to hold up if challenged in court.
This guide explains key considerations for drafting, negotiating, and enforcing noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements in Illinois. It is intended for business owners, managers, and human resources professionals who must balance protecting company interests with legal limits. You will find plain-language explanations of terms, common circumstances that call for agreements, options for limited or broader protection, and practical recommendations for documenting and communicating restrictions to employees and contractors.
Noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements serve to protect valuable business assets such as customer lists, trade practices, and employee relationships. Carefully drafted agreements can deter unfair competition and reduce the chance of client or workforce loss after departures. In Illinois, courts evaluate reasonableness, so a narrowly tailored approach often provides the best balance between enforceability and effective protection for the company without imposing undue burdens on workers.
Frankfort Law Group is a trial-focused firm serving businesses throughout Cook County and the surrounding Illinois communities, including Elk Grove Village. Our attorneys counsel clients on business and corporate matters, including drafting agreements, negotiating terms, and litigating disputes when necessary. We combine courtroom experience with practical contract planning to help organizations protect their interests while complying with state law and preserving key employee relationships.
Noncompete agreements typically restrict a former employee from working for a competitor or starting a competing business within defined limits of time, geography, and scope. Nonsolicitation clauses prohibit former employees from soliciting customers or staff. Both forms function to protect a company’s legitimate business interests, but they differ in intensity and reach. Employers should choose the type and scope of restriction that fits the role and the value of the confidential information or relationships involved.
Illinois law requires that restraints be reasonable in duration, geographical scope, and subject matter to be enforceable. Courts weigh the employer’s interest against an employee’s right to earn a livelihood. A blanket restriction that sweeps too broadly is more likely to be partially or fully voided. When drafting agreements in Illinois, careful attention to clarity, documented consideration, and tailored limitations improves the likelihood that the contract will be upheld if challenged.
Noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements are contractual tools used to limit certain activities after employment ends. Noncompete provisions restrict competitive work while nonsolicitation provisions bar outreach to clients, customers, or employees. Typical agreement elements include the prohibited activities, temporal limits, geographic bounds, and what constitutes confidential information. Proper definitions and precise drafting reduce ambiguity and help courts understand the legitimate business interests the agreement intends to protect.
Effective agreements address scope of prohibited activity, duration, and geographic reach, and they state the consideration given in exchange for the restriction. The process should include identifying the protected interests, tailoring the restriction to those interests, communicating terms clearly to the employee, and documenting acceptance. When a dispute arises, the firm evaluates enforceability, negotiates resolutions, or litigates to protect client rights while seeking outcomes that limit business disruption.
Understanding the specialized terms used in these agreements helps business owners and employees know their rights and obligations. This glossary covers frequently used phrases such as consideration, scope, offset clauses, and carve-outs for passive investment. Clear definitions reduce costly misunderstandings and support consistent practices across hiring, onboarding, and separation processes. Knowing these terms also helps when evaluating the reasonableness of proposed restrictions under Illinois standards.
A noncompete agreement is a contract in which an employee agrees not to enter into competition with the employer for a certain period of time and within a certain geographic area after employment ends. It may cover specific activities or entire lines of business. The enforceability of a noncompete depends on whether the restriction is reasonable and necessary to protect a legitimate business interest without unduly restricting the employee’s ability to earn a living.
Consideration refers to what the employee receives in exchange for agreeing to restrictions. For new hires, consideration is usually the job itself; for existing employees, it might be a raise, promotion, or other benefit. Proper documentation of consideration is important because Illinois courts examine whether the employee received sufficient value in return for the covenant. Clear records help support enforceability if the restriction is contested.
A nonsolicitation agreement prevents a former employee from contacting or soliciting the employer’s clients, customers, or employees for business after separation. These clauses are narrower than noncompete provisions and often stand a better chance of enforceability when narrowly written. They focus on preserving relationships and preventing poaching, while still allowing the individual to pursue employment in similar fields if they do not actively solicit the employer’s contacts.
Enforceability refers to whether a court will uphold a restriction as legally valid and binding. In Illinois, courts assess whether the covenant protects a legitimate business interest and whether its duration, geographic scope, and activities are reasonable. Ambiguous or overly broad terms may be voided or narrowed by a judge. Thoughtful drafting, documented business justification, and tailored limits improve the chances that a restriction will be enforced.
Business owners can choose a limited approach that targets specific contacts or activities, or a comprehensive strategy that combines broader noncompetes with nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions. Limited approaches are often easier to justify in court and less likely to hinder employee mobility. Comprehensive strategies provide more protection but require careful drafting to avoid being overly broad. The best option depends on the role, the value of relationships and information, and the competitive landscape.
A limited agreement that focuses on particular clients or accounts can be sufficient when an employee’s work centers on a defined set of relationships. Narrow restrictions protect those connections without imposing broad geographic or occupational limits. This approach balances business needs with fairness and tends to be more defensible in Illinois courts, especially when the employer documents the specific customers or territories that justify the restriction.
When the primary concern is preserving trade secrets or confidential processes, confidentiality clauses paired with targeted nonsolicitation provisions may suffice. These measures prevent misuse of proprietary information while allowing the former employee to continue working in the industry in roles that do not exploit the protected materials. Clear definitions of confidential information and strong internal controls reinforce these limited restrictions.
Businesses operating across multiple regions or in several lines of business may require comprehensive protections to address varied competitive risks. A coordinated suite of agreements—noncompete, nonsolicitation, confidentiality, and assignment of inventions—offers broader coverage for different roles and jurisdictions. Comprehensive planning ensures consistency across contracts, reducing loopholes and supporting enforcement where employees move between territories or business units.
When key employees have access to strategic customer relationships or proprietary processes, a more comprehensive approach can protect substantial business value. Broader agreements tailored to the role and documented with clear justification help preserve continuity and deter harmful competitive conduct. These measures must be carefully calibrated to respect legal limits while addressing the higher stakes associated with certain positions and information.
A comprehensive strategy can provide layered protection against multiple forms of competitive harm, including client solicitation, employee poaching, and misuse of confidential data. By aligning confidentiality, nonsolicitation, and limited noncompete provisions, a business reduces the likelihood of gaps that a departing employee might exploit. The result is a clearer legal posture and stronger bargaining position in negotiations or disputes.
Comprehensive agreements also support internal governance by establishing expectations for employees and creating uniform standards across hiring and separations. Consistent documentation and training reduce surprises and help businesses quickly respond when issues arise. While broader coverage requires careful drafting to be reasonable, a coordinated approach can streamline enforcement and strengthen deterrence against post-employment misconduct.
Comprehensive agreements clearly articulate which customer relationships, data, and processes are protected, reducing ambiguity in disputes. When employees understand the boundaries, businesses are better able to prevent unauthorized solicitation and use of confidential information. Clear protections also aid in demonstrating to a court the legitimate interests the employer seeks to protect, improving the overall defensibility of the restrictions in litigation.
Thorough drafting, routine contract reviews, and employee communications reduce the number of enforcement disputes and make defenses stronger when claims occur. Training and documentation of policies ensure employees know what is expected, and prompt action on suspected breaches limits potential harm. A proactive approach often results in fewer contested claims and more efficient resolution when disputes must be addressed in court or through negotiation.
Begin drafting by identifying the specific business interest to be protected and limit restrictions to what is reasonably necessary. Avoid overly broad geographic or activity descriptions and define key terms like clients or confidential information. Narrow, targeted provisions are more likely to be upheld and are easier to explain to employees, which supports enforceability and reduces the risk of a court striking down the contract.
When presenting restrictions, document the consideration provided and the employee’s acknowledgment. Clear onboarding and separation communications that explain the agreement’s purpose, scope, and duration reduce misunderstandings and support enforceability. Written records of offers, signings, and any additional compensation create a stronger factual record if the firm must defend the agreement in court or negotiate a resolution.
Employers consider these agreements to shield client lists, deter unfair competition, and protect proprietary processes and pricing strategies. Agreements can be tailored to the level of risk presented by a role, such as sales personnel with direct client contact or senior staff with strategic decision-making access. Thoughtful use of these tools helps businesses preserve customer goodwill and maintain competitive stability during employee transitions.
Beyond immediate protection, agreements can clarify expectations and reduce the likelihood of surprise departures that harm operations. They support valuation and sale processes by demonstrating preserved client relationships and documented protections. Employers should evaluate whether the expected benefits justify the restrictions and ensure agreements are reasonable to reduce exposure to legal challenges and to maintain constructive employment relationships.
Typical situations include employees who manage key accounts, sales staff with direct client contacts, senior personnel with access to confidential strategies, and transactions such as mergers or acquisitions where preserving client continuity is essential. Agreements also play a role when businesses invest in employee training or proprietary systems and need to protect those investments from being immediately exploited by a departing employee working for a direct competitor.
Sales roles and client-facing positions often warrant targeted nonsolicitation or limited noncompete provisions because employees build personal relationships that drive revenue. Agreements should specifically identify the accounts, activity, or territory covered and provide reasonable time limits. Clear documentation of the relationships and the business interest in protecting them helps justify the restriction if enforcement becomes necessary.
When employees have access to proprietary processes, unique pricing structures, or confidential product development information, confidentiality provisions combined with sensible nonsolicitation or limited noncompete restrictions help prevent misuse. Employers should clearly define the confidential materials and implement safeguards such as password controls and access logs, in addition to contractual protections that outline prohibited uses after employment ends.
In mergers and acquisitions, buyers often require seller employees to sign restrictions to protect acquired goodwill and customer lists. Tailored agreements help maintain stability and preserve value during ownership transitions. Agreements used in these transactions should be carefully reviewed to ensure they align with sale terms, consideration is documented, and any geographic or duration limits match the scope of the acquired business operations.
If your business needs clear, enforceable noncompete or nonsolicitation protections in Elk Grove Village or elsewhere in Cook County, Frankfort Law Group can assist. We advise on drafting, negotiate reasonable terms, and take action to enforce or defend agreements as needed. Contact our office at 708-766-7333 to discuss your situation and learn practical steps to protect client relationships and proprietary information under Illinois law.
Frankfort Law Group brings a litigation-ready perspective to drafting and defending noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements. We evaluate business needs, align contract language with Illinois law, and aim to create enforceable provisions that withstand scrutiny. Our approach emphasizes clear documentation, tailored limits, and strategic planning to help clients minimize legal risk while protecting the most important business interests.
Clients benefit from a responsive team that prioritizes practical outcomes and efficient resolution. Whether negotiating terms, updating company templates, or responding to alleged breaches, we provide straightforward guidance and documented recommendations. Our focus is on solutions that allow businesses to operate confidently while maintaining flexibility to adapt agreements as circumstances change and as legal standards evolve.
We work with employers across industries to create uniform practices for onboarding and separation, reducing inconsistencies that can undermine enforcement. From drafting and employee communications to litigation strategy when needed, our services are designed to protect business value and support long-term stability. Contact us to discuss tailored options that reflect your operations and legal needs in Illinois.
Our process begins with a confidential consultation to understand your business, the role involved, and the assets to be protected. We then review existing documents, advise on reasonable limitations, and prepare tailored agreements. If a dispute arises, we evaluate enforcement options, attempt negotiated resolutions, and prepare for litigation if necessary. Throughout, we emphasize documentation, clear communication, and practical solutions tailored to your business.
We start by reviewing current contracts, job responsibilities, and any relevant communications to identify what must be protected. This assessment includes identifying confidential information, customer relationships, and the employee’s role. We also consider prior practice and any existing obligations to third parties. A thorough initial review establishes the facts needed to create appropriate restrictions and to evaluate potential enforcement challenges.
Document review includes examining employment agreements, offer letters, company policies, and records of client assignments. Gathering evidence of customer lists, sales territories, and training investments helps justify proposed restrictions. By assembling a clear factual record, we strengthen the company’s position whether negotiating with an employee or litigating a breach, and we ensure any new agreement aligns with the company’s factual needs and legal requirements.
We analyze enforceability risks under Illinois law, considering duration, geographic scope, and the specific activities restricted. This risk assessment informs whether a limited or broader approach is appropriate and helps shape negotiation strategy. By identifying likely judicial concerns early, we draft alternative provisions and mitigation measures to preserve protection while reducing the chances of a court narrowing or voiding the covenant.
In the drafting and negotiation phase we prepare clear, role-specific language that reflects the business interest to be protected and the consideration provided. We work with the employer to determine appropriate duration and scope, draft supporting confidentiality clauses, and propose communication strategies for employees. Negotiation focuses on achieving enforceable terms that the employee can accept while maintaining necessary protections for the company.
Agreements are tailored to the employee’s duties and the geographic market in which the company competes. This customization improves clarity and enforceability, and addresses unique concerns for different positions. We also consider potential jurisdictional issues for employees who travel between regions or work remotely, ensuring that the agreement language reflects the realistic scope of the company’s legitimate interests.
Clear communication with employees about agreement terms and the reason for restrictions reduces future disputes. We help employers craft onboarding materials and separation notices that document consideration and outline expectations. Transparent communications help employees understand their obligations and the company’s interests, supporting voluntary compliance and reducing the need for aggressive enforcement steps later on.
If violations occur or an agreement is challenged, we evaluate enforcement options, seek injunctive relief when appropriate, and pursue damages or negotiated settlements. Conversely, when defending a former employee against overbroad restrictions, we advocate for reasonable outcomes and argue to limit or invalidate unreasonable clauses. Our litigation approach emphasizes efficient resolution and protection of business operations while following court procedures and deadlines.
When enforcement is necessary we pursue remedies such as injunctive relief to stop ongoing solicitation, damages for harm, and negotiated settlements to protect client relationships. Preparation includes compiling evidence of solicitation or misuse of confidential information, demonstrating the business interest at stake, and showing that the restriction is reasonable. Prompt action often preserves evidence and limits ongoing harm to the business.
When individuals challenge restrictions as overly broad or unreasonable, we present factual and legal arguments to narrow the scope or seek invalidation when appropriate. Defense strategies include showing lack of legitimate interest, demonstrating undue hardship, or proving ambiguous drafting. The goal is a fair outcome that protects employee rights while respecting legitimate business concerns, seeking a resolution that aligns with Illinois law.
At the Frankfort Law Group, we take great pride in our commitment to personal service. Clients come to us because they have problems, and they depend upon us to help them find solutions. We take these obligations seriously. When you meet with us, we know that you are only doing so because you need help. Since we started our firm in northeast Illinois, we have focused on providing each of our clients with personal attention. You do not have to be afraid to tell us your story. We are not here to judge you or make you feel ashamed for seeking help. Our only goal is to help you get results and move past your current legal problems.
At the Frankfort Law Group, we take great pride in our commitment to personal service. Clients come to us because they have problems, and they depend upon us to help them find solutions. We take these obligations seriously. When you meet with us, we know that you are only doing so because you need help. Since we started our firm in northeast Illinois, we have focused on providing each of our clients with personal attention. You do not have to be afraid to tell us your story. We are not here to judge you or make you feel ashamed for seeking help. Our only goal is to help you get results and move past your current legal problems.
A noncompete agreement restricts an individual from working for competitors or starting a competing business for a specified time and within a defined area, whereas a nonsolicitation agreement prevents an individual from actively contacting or soliciting the employer’s clients or employees after separation. Noncompetes are broader in scope and can limit occupational options, while nonsolicitation clauses target the protection of relationships without banning employment in the industry. Choosing between them depends on the role and the legitimate business interest to be protected. Nonsolicitation clauses are often more defensible when the goal is to protect specific client lists or employee relationships. Noncompetes may be appropriate for senior roles with strategic access, but they must be tailored to be reasonable under Illinois standards.
Noncompete agreements can be enforceable in Illinois if they are reasonable in duration, geographic scope, and subject matter and if they protect legitimate business interests such as trade secrets or client relationships. Courts will scrutinize overly broad or ambiguous covenants and may narrow or void them. Drafting that focuses on specific interests and documents the business need enhances the likelihood of enforcement. Employers should avoid blanket restrictions and ensure the agreement provides clear boundaries. Properly documenting consideration and demonstrating the connection between the restriction and the company’s protectable interests are key factors that Illinois courts consider when evaluating enforceability.
There is no fixed maximum duration for noncompete restrictions under Illinois law, but courts assess whether the time limit is reasonable given the business interest involved. Typical durations often range from several months to a few years, depending on the role and industry. Courts may strike down or narrow restrictions that impose long-term barriers to an individual’s ability to work without adequate justification. When setting duration, employers should consider how long the protected relationships or proprietary information remain sensitive. Shorter, well-justified timeframes tend to be more defensible and can still provide meaningful protection during critical transition periods.
Independent contractors may be subject to noncompete or nonsolicitation provisions if the contract clearly sets forth the restrictions and the parties accept those terms. The enforceability of such clauses depends on the contract language and the context of the relationship, including whether the contractor had access to confidential information or direct client relationships that warrant protection. Because contractor relationships can vary, it is important to draft tailored agreements that reflect the independent nature of the work while documenting legitimate business interests. Clear consideration and explicit terms reduce the risk of disputes about whether restrictions are appropriate for the contractor relationship.
For existing employees, courts often look for new consideration that demonstrates the employer provided additional value in exchange for the restriction. Examples include a promotion, raise, bonus, or a new employment agreement. Simply continuing employment without some demonstrable new benefit can weaken the claim that adequate consideration was provided for a new covenant. Employers should document any additional compensation or tangible benefits given in exchange for the agreement. Written records of the offer, acceptance, and the business reasons for the restriction help establish that the employee received something of value in return.
Companies should clearly label and control access to confidential information and limit disclosure to those who need it for their jobs. Maintain written policies that define confidential materials, require nondisclosure, and explain permissible use. Technical measures like access controls, encryption, and log monitoring complement contractual protections and establish a practical system for safeguarding proprietary data. Documentation of efforts to protect confidential information supports the company’s claim of a legitimate interest in court. When combined with clear contractual language, policies and records showing consistent treatment of confidential materials strengthen the company’s position in enforcement actions.
If a former employee solicits clients in violation of a nonsolicitation clause, document the solicitations and preserve relevant communications, such as emails, texts, and customer complaints. Promptly assess the agreement terms and consult with counsel to consider sending a cease-and-desist letter, seeking injunctive relief, or pursuing damages depending on the harm. Early action helps prevent further damage and preserves evidence that may be critical in litigation. Before formal enforcement, consider negotiation as a practical step to resolve the issue quickly. Often a targeted demand letter and documentation of harm will lead to compliance or a negotiated remedy without prolonged litigation, saving time and expense for the business.
Courts sometimes modify overly broad agreements under the doctrine of blue penciling or through judicial narrowing, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific language of the covenant. In Illinois, judges may interpret ambiguous terms and determine whether partial enforcement is appropriate, but they typically avoid rewriting contracts beyond the parties’ intent. Agreements that provide severability clauses and clear limits are easier for courts to assess without wholesale revision. To reduce the risk of a court invalidating an agreement, draft with reasonable limits up front and include alternative provisions where possible. Consulting counsel during drafting helps ensure the covenant is both functional and aligned with judicial tendencies in the state.
Small businesses should evaluate the necessity and proportionality of noncompete agreements on a hire-by-hire basis. Blanket use for all hires can create enforceability problems and harm employee relations. Consider whether the role involves access to sensitive client lists, proprietary processes, or long-term strategic knowledge that justifies a restriction. Tailored protections for key roles often provide needed protection without unnecessarily limiting other employees’ opportunities. Smaller employers can achieve protection through narrowly scoped nonsolicitation and confidentiality agreements combined with sensible onboarding and documentation practices. Periodic review of templates ensures terms remain appropriate as the business grows or changes.
Remote and hybrid work can complicate geographic restrictions, so agreements should account for the actual market areas where the employee competes or the locations of key clients. Avoid broad territory language that does not reflect where the company does business. Tailoring geographic scope to realistic competitive areas and clarifying how remote work interacts with restrictions helps reduce ambiguity and potential challenges. Employers should also update policies and templates to address remote access to confidential systems, expectations for communications, and the scope of prohibited activities. Clear definitions and documentation reflecting modern work arrangements strengthen enforceability and reduce disputes about applicability.