Are Non-Competes Enforceable for Therapists and Behavioral Health Staff in Florida?

Yes, with drafting discipline.

Florida enforces a non-compete against a therapist, counselor, social worker, psychologist or behavior analyst under Florida Statutes § 542.335, but only when the restriction is set out in a writing the clinician signed and is reasonable in time, area and line of business.

There is a third gate: your practice must prove a legitimate business interest, and Florida names the ones behavioral health practices care about — substantial relationships with specific existing or prospective patients or clients, and patient or client goodwill tied to a professional practice.

That is the statute listing the client panel you built as something a covenant can protect.

The statute's mechanics lean toward enforcement: an overbroad clause gets modified rather than thrown out, the clinician's economic hardship is off the table, and the covenant is construed in your favor.

For where Florida sits nationally — the federal rule's fate, the states that ban these clauses — see our guide to non-competes nationally.

Florida's governing rule is statutory.

Florida Statutes § 542.335 governs restrictive covenants entered into on or after July 1, 1996, and is the framework a Florida clinician's covenant is tested in: signed writing, reasonableness, a proven legitimate business interest.

There is a newer, second track.

Florida's 2025 CHOICE Act — Laws of Florida chapter 2025-213, effective July 1, 2025 — allows a "covered noncompete agreement" with a covered employee earning more than twice the annual mean wage of the relevant Florida county; such an agreement may last up to 4 years within the geographic area the agreement defines.

That track has a carve-out that decides most behavioral health questions in advance: it expressly excludes anyone classified as a health care practitioner under Florida Statutes § 456.001.

Which licenses that sweeps in is the next section.

Florida layers healthcare-specific rules on top of § 542.335.

Neither of the two covered here — a physician-specific statute and the 2025 CHOICE Act — expands what you can do with licensed behavioral health staff.

The first, Florida Statutes § 542.336, voids a restrictive covenant with a physician (chapter 458 or 459) who practices a medical specialty in a county where one entity employs or contracts with all physicians practicing that specialty.

It does not cover psychologists, therapists or nurse practitioners; its only likely relevance to a behavioral health practice is a psychiatrist hire — a county-specific question for counsel.

The second is the CHOICE Act exclusion.

Florida's § 456.001(4) definition of health care practitioner includes licensees under chapters 458 and 459 (physicians), 464 (nursing, including APRNs), 490 (psychological services) and 491 (clinical, counseling and psychotherapy services).

Chapter 491 licenses clinical social workers, marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors; chapter 490 is "Psychological Services" — so Florida LCSWs, LMFTs, LMHCs, psychologists, psychiatrists and psychiatric APRNs are all outside the CHOICE Act, under § 542.335's ordinary rules.

The 4-year covenant does not apply to those licensed staff.

Behavior analysts are the open question.

Our review of Title XXXII found no behavior-analyst licensure chapter — certification runs through the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Florida Statutes § 393.17) — so a BCBA credential on its own does not appear to be a § 456.001 credential.

On that reading a BCBA earning more than twice the county mean wage could fall inside the CHOICE definition, but no Florida court or agency has confirmed it; treat it as unsettled and ask Florida employment counsel.

The writing must be signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought — your clinician.

The legitimate business interest is yours to prove, not presumed: Florida names patient and client relationships and goodwill tied to a professional practice as qualifying interests.

Time carries statutory presumptions: Florida courts presume a restraint of 6 months or less reasonable and one of more than 2 years unreasonable for a former employee, so a term outside those brackets changes what you must justify.

Scope errors are not fatal, but not free: if a covenant is overbroad or overlong, the court shall modify it and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect the interest.

That mechanism is why Florida's statute leans toward enforcement — and it has a limit: the enforced clause is only as wide as the interest you prove.

Finally: the court may not consider the individualized economic hardship enforcement would cause the clinician, but must consider the effect on public health, safety and welfare — the factor closest to a client-access argument in mental health — and must construe the covenant in favor of reasonable protection of your legitimate business interests, not narrowly against you as the drafter.

Florida's statute is written for restrictive covenants as a category — a signed writing, reasonable in time, area and line of business.

Whether a client or employee non-solicitation clause is a restrictive covenant under § 542.335, and how the statute's definitions apply to your wording, is a question for Florida employment counsel.

The interest the statute names maps naturally onto client non-solicits: substantial relationships with specific existing or prospective patients or clients.

Prospective matters — the named interest covers clients who are not yet in your caseload, not only current ones.

And a non-solicit restrains less than a non-compete: it binds the clinician's conduct, while the client stays free to choose where to receive care.

States treat patient non-solicits very differently — some bar them outright for behavioral health clinicians or treat near-equivalent clauses as void non-competes — so do not copy another state's clause into a Florida contract.

Our guide to non-solicitation clauses maps the states and covers the ethics codes that shape a client's transition when a clinician leaves.

Draft to the interests the statute names.

Identify the specific existing or prospective clients this clinician serves and the goodwill attached to your practice, then set the term and area from that — not from a template's default radius and years.

Stay inside the presumptions where you can: six months or less is where Florida's reasonableness presumption sits.

Past two years, you are asking a court to find a presumed-unreasonable restraint justified by an interest you must prove.

Do not treat the modification rule as insurance for sloppy drafting.

A court trims an overbroad clause only to the relief reasonably necessary to protect the interest you proved, so the enforceable covenant may end up narrower than what you thought you signed.

Layer tools that restrain less.

A confidentiality provision protects your information directly, and for a clinician whose training or supervision your practice funded, a training repayment agreement is a separate instrument with its own rules — see our guide to training repayment agreements before adding one to a Florida offer.

Whatever you land on, have Florida employment counsel read the final wording — including the unsettled CHOICE question for a high-earning BCBA.