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

Yes — with a catch that shapes everything else.

South Carolina governs employee non-competes by case law, so the working question is whether your clause is reasonable under the test the state's courts apply: a covenant not to compete is enforceable if it is not detrimental to the public interest, is reasonably limited as to time and territory, and is supported by valuable consideration.

The test is general employment law — as far as this page's research located, it applies the same way to a counselor, a licensed social worker, a BCBA or a psychologist on your staff.

The catch: South Carolina courts will not repair a covenant that overreaches.

Its restrictions stand or fall on their own terms, so one overreaching term can leave you with no enforceable non-compete at all.

For how other states treat these clauses — and the fate of the federal rule — see our guide to non-competes nationally.

Case law, not statute.

The research behind this page located no South Carolina statute governing employee non-competes; the controlling rules come from South Carolina court decisions.

The starting point is Poole v. Incentives Unlimited, 345 S.C. 378 (2001), which states the test above: public interest, reasonable limits on time and territory, valuable consideration.

Consideration is its own trap in South Carolina.

Under Poole, a non-compete signed during ongoing at-will employment needs separate consideration beyond continued employment — a raise or promotion, for example.

If you ask a therapist or BCBA who already works for you to sign one, continued employment alone is not enough in South Carolina.

The enforcement-side rules come from Poynter Investments v. Century Builders, 387 S.C. 583 (2010): the restrictions in a South Carolina non-compete clause cannot be rewritten by a court or limited by the parties’ agreement, but “must stand or fall on their own terms.”

Poynter also recounts the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Stonhard (2005) holding that a court will not insert a geographic limit into a covenant that lacks one — that reformation would be void, because it would add a term the parties never negotiated.

The research behind this page located no South Carolina statute specific to non-competes for counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, psychologists, behavior analysts, nurses or physicians.

Treat that as an incomplete search rather than a clean answer — the South Carolina Code was not searched exhaustively, and 2025–2026 South Carolina bills were not checked — and have employment counsel confirm the point before you rely on it.

What the located case law tells you is what kind of rule applies.

The reasonableness test turns on the public interest, the time and territory limits and the consideration — nothing in it turns on the clinician’s license: on the rule this page located, a South Carolina covenant is tested the same way against a departing counselor, a BCBA or your practice’s prescriber.

If a candidate or a trade-association update tells you South Carolina has banned clinician non-competes, ask which statute — none surfaced in this page’s research.

Poole’s three requirements, restated for a practice owner:

• Public interest. The covenant must not be detrimental to the public interest.
• Time and territory. The restriction must be reasonably limited as to both. No source this page relies on supplies a safe duration or radius for a South Carolina clinician covenant — the research located no typical numbers — so treat any template term or mileage figure with caution and have employment counsel test it against your actual client base.
• Consideration. The covenant must be supported by valuable consideration, and one signed mid-employment needs more than continued employment.

Then the one-way ratchet.

South Carolina courts will not rewrite an overbroad covenant’s restrictions to make them reasonable, and they will not supply a territory you left out.

In Faces Boutique v. Gibbs (1995), as described in Poynter, a South Carolina appellate court held a covenant overbroad because it barred the former employee from being associated “in any capacity” with a competing business — and the employer could not save it at trial by agreeing to a narrower reading.

For a therapy practice, the drafting lesson is to restrict the clinical role rather than association of any kind, and to assume every clause reads exactly as written: a single overreaching term — an unlimited territory or an “any capacity” bar — can leave a South Carolina practice with no enforceable non-compete at all, and a contract with no territory at all cannot be repaired after signing either: the court will not insert one.

Non-solicitation clauses are narrower than non-competes: instead of barring work in the field, they ask a departing clinician not to solicit your clients — or your staff — after leaving.

How South Carolina courts treat client non-solicits for clinicians was not covered by the research behind this page, and no source in it says whether South Carolina applies the same reasonableness test to these clauses.

Do not assume your client non-solicit inherits the non-compete cases; have employment counsel address it on its own terms.

For the wider picture — how these clauses are treated in other states, and how the professional ethics codes shape a client’s transition when a clinician leaves — see our guide to non-solicitation clauses.

Because South Carolina courts will not rewrite or narrow an overbroad covenant, the wording you sign is the wording you live with.

Draft to the stand-or-fall rule, not to a rewrite you hope for.

Draft narrow from the start.

Define the territory precisely — a South Carolina court will not add one you left out.

Set a duration you can defend as reasonable, and tie the restriction to the clinical services your practice actually provides rather than “any capacity” work.

Pay current hires for the covenant.

If a therapist or BCBA already on staff signs, pair it with something of genuine value — Poole points to a raise or promotion — because continued employment alone does not carry a mid-employment covenant in South Carolina.

Prefer narrower instruments first.

A confidentiality clause and a tightly drawn client non-solicit restrain less than a practice ban.

Where you front a clinician’s training or supervision costs, a training repayment agreement is a separate instrument with its own rules — see our guide to training repayment agreements before adding one.

Whatever you land on, have South Carolina employment counsel read the final wording before it goes into an offer.