- 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
Noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements are common tools for protecting a company’s clients, confidential information, and competitive position. In Northfield and throughout Illinois these contracts require careful drafting to balance enforceability with legitimate business interests. Frankfort Law Group helps business clients craft clear, defensible agreements tailored to their operations, whether the goal is to prevent direct competition, protect customer relationships, or limit solicitation by departing employees or contractors.
Illinois law has specific limits and evolving case law that affect how restrictive covenants are enforced and interpreted. Employers should consider duration, geographic scope, and the nature of the role when creating these agreements. Frankfort Law Group’s trial lawyers provide practical guidance on drafting, reviewing, negotiating, and defending restrictive covenants to reduce litigation risk while preserving the protections businesses need to operate with confidence.
Well-drafted noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements help businesses protect trade secrets, client lists, goodwill, and critical relationships. These agreements can deter unfair competition and provide a legal basis for injunctive relief or damages if a departing employee improperly solicits clients or uses confidential information. Thoughtful agreements also set clear expectations for employees and contractors, reducing misunderstandings and fostering smoother relationships during transitions or workforce changes.
Frankfort Law Group represents employers and business owners across Cook County and throughout Illinois on restrictive covenant matters. Our trial lawyers combine courtroom experience with practical contract drafting skills to address both preventive and enforcement needs. We focus on clear communication, realistic assessments of risk, and strategies that reflect the business goals of Northfield clients, including negotiation strategies and courtroom readiness when disputes cannot be resolved amicably.
Noncompete agreements restrict an employee’s ability to work for a competitor or start a competing business for a defined period and area, while nonsolicitation agreements limit contact with clients, customers, or employees. These tools are part of a broader set of restrictive covenants that employers use to protect legitimate business interests. Clear terms and appropriate consideration are essential to make these provisions practical and enforceable under state law.
Illinois courts examine reasonableness in duration, geographic scope, and scope of activities when deciding whether to enforce restrictive covenants. Recent state statutes and case law emphasize protecting lower-wage workers from overbroad restrictions, and courts may narrow or refuse to enforce provisions that are unduly broad. Employers should therefore tailor agreements to specific roles and document the legitimate business interests they protect.
A noncompete restricts post‑employment competition, typically by limiting certain types of work in a defined area and time. A nonsolicitation provision prevents solicitation of clients, customers, or employees. Confidentiality clauses and nondisclosure agreements often accompany these covenants to guard trade secrets and proprietary information. Understanding how each component operates together helps businesses design protections that address real risks while minimizing the chance that a court will view the restrictions as overbroad.
Core elements include the parties covered, duration of the restriction, geographic limits, prohibited activities, consideration provided, and remedies for breach. The process typically begins with assessing business needs, identifying protectable interests, drafting tailored language, and communicating terms to affected employees. When disputes arise, the process shifts to negotiation, mediation, or litigation to enforce or defend the covenant. Clear recordkeeping and consistent application improve enforceability.
This glossary explains common terms found in noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements and why they matter. Knowing these definitions helps business owners and managers evaluate proposed language and understand the practical effects of restrictions. Clear terminology reduces ambiguity and supports enforceability by showing that covenants are carefully tailored to protect legitimate business interests while respecting employees’ ability to work.
A noncompete agreement limits a person’s ability to engage in competing business activities after their employment ends. It typically specifies the restricted activities, geographic area, and time period. Courts scrutinize these provisions for reasonableness, so language that is narrowly tailored to protect trade secrets or customer relationships while allowing reasonable employment opportunities is more likely to be upheld under Illinois law.
A nonsolicitation agreement prevents a departing worker from contacting or attempting to do business with a company’s clients, customers, or fellow employees for a set period. These provisions concentrate on direct solicitation and recruitment rather than absolute restrictions on employment, and they are often viewed more favorably by courts when they are narrowly written to protect specific relationships and business interests.
Consideration refers to what an employee receives in exchange for agreeing to restrictions, such as continued employment, a signing bonus, or other tangible benefits. In some jurisdictions, ongoing employment can serve as consideration for noncompete clauses, but the adequacy and timing of consideration are factors courts may examine when assessing enforceability, so employers should document the exchange clearly.
Blue‑penciling and severability clauses allow a court to modify or strike overly broad provisions while preserving enforceable portions of an agreement. These mechanisms can help protect an employer’s interests when a court finds certain terms unreasonable. Drafting with severability in mind increases the likelihood that enforceable protections remain if parts of the agreement are challenged.
Businesses can choose narrow, role‑specific restrictions or adopt firmwide, standardized agreements that apply to many positions. Limited agreements are often sufficient for roles with clearly defined client contact or access to sensitive information. Comprehensive strategies promote consistency and can be more defensible in disputes when uniformly applied, but they require careful drafting to avoid overbreadth and to reflect the different needs of varied positions.
A limited approach is often appropriate when protection is needed for particular accounts, confidential projects, or a small set of high‑value customers. Tailored nonsolicitation clauses or role‑specific noncompetes can address those risks without restricting general employment opportunities for employees who have limited exposure to proprietary information or client relationships.
For consultants, temporary staff, or project-based hires, short-term nonsolicitation or confidentiality agreements often provide adequate protection. These limited covenants focus on the immediate business interest and reduce the chance that a court will find the restriction unduly burdensome, especially when the duration and scope reflect the temporary nature of the engagement.
A comprehensive approach helps protect trade secrets and customer relationships across the organization by creating consistent expectations for employees and reducing loopholes. Standardized agreements make enforcement more predictable and support a unified approach to training, onboarding, and protecting business assets across multiple departments and roles.
When agreements vary widely by role or location, inconsistencies can expose a business to enforcement challenges and disputes. A firmwide framework aligned with Illinois law minimizes ambiguity, promotes consistent handling of departures, and helps HR and management apply policies evenly while preserving necessary flexibility for specialized roles.
A consistent agreement program clarifies expectations for employees, reduces negotiation friction, and enhances the company’s ability to protect confidential information and client relationships. Clear, uniform language can make it easier to demonstrate legitimate business interests to a court and can discourage misconduct by providing a clear legal basis for remedies if restrictions are breached.
Developing a comprehensive approach also streamlines onboarding and separation procedures, allowing managers to apply one set of standards and reducing the administrative burden of managing multiple bespoke agreements. This consistency supports defensibility and helps the company react quickly when enforcement or dispute resolution becomes necessary.
Standardized agreements reduce confusion and unequal treatment by applying uniform terms where appropriate. Consistency helps HR explain restrictions clearly, supports compliance training, and strengthens the company’s position if enforcement actions are needed, because courts consider fairness and consistent application when assessing disputes.
A thoughtful program increases the likelihood that courts will view restrictions as reasonable when appropriately tailored. By documenting the business interests served and applying consistent drafting practices, employers can show that covenants protect legitimate interests rather than acting as blanket restraints on trade.
Identify the specific business interests you want to protect, such as customer lists, confidential processes, or proprietary technology. Precise descriptions of those interests help limit the scope of a covenant to what a court is likely to consider reasonable. Overly broad language risks invalidation, so focus on the actual assets at risk and avoid sweeping, undefined restrictions.
Nondisclosure agreements, customer non‑poach clauses, or garden‑leave provisions can sometimes provide adequate protection without restricting an employee’s ability to find new work. These alternatives may be more acceptable to courts and to employees, and they can be tailored to preserve business interests while reducing the risk of enforcement challenges.
Legal counsel can help businesses assess which protections are appropriate and draft agreements that reflect current Illinois law and court practice. Counsel also advises on consideration, severability clauses, and recordkeeping practices that strengthen enforceability. Early legal review can prevent costly mistakes and ensure that agreements are enforceable if litigation becomes necessary.
When disputes arise, experienced counsel evaluates the likelihood of success, pursues negotiation or injunctions where warranted, and defends employers against overbroad claims. Proactive legal planning reduces the chance of disruption to business operations and helps preserve value during employee transitions, mergers, or sales.
Restrictive covenants are often used when hiring for client‑facing positions, hiring senior managers with access to trade secrets, selling part of a business, or engaging consultants with sensitive information. They are also useful when a business needs to protect customer lists or specialized relationships that took significant time and resources to develop.
Positions involving direct client contact, proprietary processes, or unique technical knowledge commonly warrant restrictive covenants. In such roles, agreements should be crafted to protect specific relationships or information while allowing the employee reasonable opportunities to continue working in their field after separation.
When a business is sold, buyers often require sellers or key employees to agree not to compete or solicit clients for a defined period to preserve the value of the transaction. These post‑closing covenants are negotiated as part of the sale process and tailored to protect the assets being transferred.
Independent contractors and consultants may have access to sensitive information or client contacts; using clear nonsolicitation and confidentiality provisions helps protect the company without imposing overly broad employment restrictions. Agreements for temporary workers should reflect the limited scope and duration of their role.
Frankfort Law Group assists Northfield business owners with practical, tailored approaches to noncompete and nonsolicitation matters. Whether you need drafting, employee communications, negotiation, or litigation support, our team offers straightforward assessments and options. Call 708-766-7333 to discuss how to protect your clients, confidential information, and business relationships while complying with Illinois law and local practice.
Our trial lawyers bring experience handling business disputes in Illinois courts and negotiating contracts that reflect real commercial needs. We combine litigation readiness with proactive drafting to help businesses deter misconduct and preserve remedies when enforcement is necessary. Our approach emphasizes plain language, reasonable limits, and defensible documentation of the interests being protected.
We prioritize clear communication with clients and practical solutions that align with business goals. That includes realistic assessments of enforceability, cost‑effective strategies for protecting relationships and proprietary information, and collaboration with HR and management to implement consistent policies that reduce future disputes and support workforce stability.
Frankfort Law Group provides hands‑on support for drafting, review, negotiation, and dispute resolution. We prepare clients for potential enforcement actions, pursue injunctive relief when appropriate, and seek settlements that preserve operations and relationships. For a consultation about restrictive covenants in Northfield and Cook County, call 708-766-7333 to discuss options specific to your business.
Our process begins with a focused assessment of your business needs, the roles at issue, and the protectable assets. We then develop tailored agreement language, advise on employee communications, and recommend implementation steps. If disputes arise, we pursue negotiation, mediation, or litigation as appropriate, always seeking practical solutions that align with clients’ operational goals and budgetary constraints.
In the first step we review existing agreements, evaluate what needs protection, and gather facts about the roles and relationships at issue. This stage focuses on identifying key business interests and determining the reasonable scope for restrictions so that agreements are tailored to the employer’s needs while reflecting Illinois legal standards.
We interview key stakeholders, review workflows, and identify who has access to confidential information or client relationships. That information guides the scope and duration of protective provisions and supports documentation that a court may consider when evaluating enforceability, helping to show that restrictions are linked to legitimate business interests.
We draft clear, role‑appropriate language that defines prohibited activities, geographic limits, duration, and remedies. For existing agreements we recommend revisions to align terms with current law and business practices, adding severability clauses and consideration language where needed to improve enforceability and reduce ambiguity.
After drafting, we assist with negotiation and rollout strategies, advising on how to present agreements to employees and how to document consideration. Effective communication reduces misunderstanding and increases acceptance, while careful negotiation can resolve concerns without sacrificing the protections the business needs to maintain competitive stability.
We help employers negotiate reasonable terms, balancing the company’s need for protection with employees’ ability to pursue employment. In transactions such as asset sales, we negotiate post‑closing covenants for sellers and key employees to ensure the transfer preserves value and reduces the risk of immediate competition or solicitation.
We provide guidance on how to explain restrictions to employees, prepare written records of consideration, and maintain evidence of individualized communication. Proper documentation of the exchange and the business purpose behind restrictions strengthens the employer’s position if enforcement becomes necessary.
When breaches occur or are threatened, we evaluate the available remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, and negotiated resolutions. Our team pursues prompt, proportionate responses aimed at limiting harm to the business while exploring settlement options that preserve operations and avoid protracted disputes when possible.
If litigation is necessary, we prepare pleadings, seek injunctive relief when immediate harm is threatened, and present evidence linking the restriction to a legitimate business interest. Courts can issue orders to prevent imminent misuse of confidential information or solicitations while claims proceed, and we pursue remedies that align with client priorities.
Where possible we seek negotiated outcomes that protect the company while limiting disruption and cost. Mediated agreements, limited carve‑outs, or structured transitions may resolve disputes effectively. These options are often faster and less disruptive than full litigation and can preserve business relationships while securing necessary protections.
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 restricts an individual from working for a competitor or starting a competing business for a set time and area. It typically addresses competitive activities and seeks to prevent direct market competition that would harm the employer’s business interests. A nonsolicitation agreement focuses on preventing contact with clients, customers, or employees for purposes of solicitation or recruitment. It aims to protect relationships and workforce stability without imposing a broad ban on employment, and thus is often viewed as a narrower, more targeted protection.
Noncompete agreements can be enforceable in Illinois if they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic reach and if they protect legitimate business interests like trade secrets or substantial customer relationships. Recent statutes and case law in the state have tightened scrutiny, particularly for lower‑wage workers, so careful tailoring is essential. Courts evaluate reasonableness on a case‑by‑case basis. Proper documentation of the business interest and appropriate consideration for the employee improve the odds that a court will enforce a well‑crafted covenant.
There is no fixed maximum duration that applies in every case; courts assess reasonableness based on the industry, role, and harm to be prevented. Shorter durations tailored to the period when confidential information or client relationships are at risk are more likely to be upheld. Employers should choose timeframes supported by the nature of the business interest, document why the duration is necessary, and avoid overly long restraints that could be seen as impeding an employee’s right to work.
Yes, businesses can use nonsolicitation agreements with contractors and consultants when those individuals have access to confidential information or customer relationships. The agreements should reflect the temporary or project‑based nature of their work and the limited scope appropriate for non‑employees. Because contractors have different legal status than employees, the language should clarify the relationship and the specific restrictions, aiming for narrow, enforceable terms that align with the contract’s duration and purpose.
To improve enforceability, include clear definitions of prohibited activities, specific geographic and temporal limits tied to legitimate interests, documented consideration, and severability clauses. Avoid overly broad or vague language that a court could view as an improper restraint on trade. Documenting the business purpose, keeping consistent practices across similar roles, and tailoring covenants to actual risks faced by the company further support enforceability and reduce the likelihood of successful challenges.
Available remedies may include injunctive relief to stop ongoing breaches, damages for losses caused by the breach, and negotiated settlements that restore business relationships or compensate the employer. Courts can order temporary or permanent injunctions when immediate harm is shown. The appropriate remedy depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the breach, the harm to the business, and the feasibility of monetary compensation. Prompt action and solid documentation improve the likelihood of securing effective relief.
An employee can challenge a restrictive covenant by arguing it is overbroad, vague, or not supported by legitimate business interests. Challenges may assert that the duration or geographic scope is unreasonable or that the agreement lacks adequate consideration. Courts may refuse to enforce or may narrow overly broad provisions. Employees and employers alike benefit from clear, tailored language that balances protection with the individual’s right to earn a living.
Yes. Agreements used in the sale of a business often involve sellers and key employees and are designed to protect the value of transferred assets, so they are frequently more detailed and tied to the terms of the transaction. These covenants are negotiated as part of deal documents and reflect the scope of what was sold. For regular hires, agreements should be role‑specific and proportionate to the employer’s protectable interests. Transactional covenants often include stronger post‑closing restrictions and are supported by purchase consideration tied to the sale.
Alternatives include nondisclosure agreements to protect trade secrets, customer non‑poach clauses, and garden‑leave arrangements that provide compensation during a limited noncompete period. These options can offer strong protection while reducing the risk of being struck down as overly broad. Choosing the right alternative depends on the business interest at stake. Confidentiality provisions paired with narrow nonsolicitation clauses often achieve protection without preventing employees from continuing their careers in related fields.
Start by identifying the assets and relationships that need protection and gathering employment and contract records that show who has access to those assets. Reviewing existing agreements and documenting business reasons for restrictions helps shape defensible language. Contact Frankfort Law Group to discuss tailored options for Northfield businesses, including drafting, review, and enforcement strategies. A focused assessment will clarify what protections are appropriate and outline practical next steps for implementation.