Can a law firm make paralegals and staff sign non-competes or non-solicits?

Rule 5.6 is the ABA's model rule on restrictions on a lawyer's right to practice, and its text is the answer to this question.

The rule covers agreements that restrict "the right of a lawyer to practice" after the relationship ends.

Paralegals, legal assistants, legal secretaries, intake and billing staff are not lawyers, so a covenant signed by a staff member is not what the rule governs — our research reads those agreements as sitting under ordinary state contract and employment law instead.

Two consequences follow, and both matter when you are hiring for your law firm.

First, the ethics-rule analysis that applies to associates and partners is simply not the analysis for staff — the attorney non-competes question runs under Rule 5.6, and this page does not repeat it.

Second, sitting outside Rule 5.6 does not make a staff covenant enforceable.

It makes the question a state-law question: your state's contract and employment law — including any statute it has written on non-competes — decides, and the statutes our research verified do not take the same approach.

So the order of questions for a staff agreement runs: what does our state's law say, then what can this covenant lawfully cover, then what should the agreement ask for instead.

The next sections take those in order — the states first, then the federal rule that is not in effect, then the non-solicit and confidentiality terms that round out the question.

For staff, the operative law is state law, and in the states below a statute speaks to non-competes.

Here is the set of statutes our research verified as of October 2, 2026 — and one scope note before the list: this is what we verified for this page, not a survey of every state's law.

A state not named below was not checked; it was not cleared.

• California voids them. Business and Professions Code 16600(a) makes "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind" void to that extent, except as the chapter provides. Section 16600.5 adds that a contract void under the chapter is unenforceable regardless of where and when it was signed, bars employers from entering into one, and makes doing so a civil violation.
• Minnesota voids them, with exceptions. Statutes 181.988, subd. 2: "Any covenant not to compete contained in a contract or agreement is void and unenforceable." The statute also lists exceptions, such as the sale or dissolution of a business.
• North Dakota voids them, with exceptions. Century Code 9-08-06 voids a contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, to that extent — except for listed situations such as the sale of a business's goodwill.
• Oklahoma lets the work stand, as long as established customers are not directly solicited. Title 15, § 15-219A lets a former employee work in the same or similar business as long as they do not directly solicit the employer's established customers; conflicting contract terms are void.

Washington is phasing them out entirely, in three dated steps.

Until June 30, 2027, RCW 49.62.020 voids a noncompete for an employee unless annualized earnings from the party seeking enforcement exceed $100,000 — a figure adjusted annually under RCW 49.62.040.

We did not verify the adjusted current amount; check it with Washington's Department of Labor & Industries before relying on a number.

In this same window, a court or arbitrator must presume a noncompetition covenant lasting more than eighteen months after termination is unreasonable and unenforceable.

Then the floor drops.

Under a 2026 Washington law (2026 c 149), beginning on June 30, 2027 all noncompetition covenants are void and unenforceable regardless of when they were signed — last year or a decade ago makes no difference.

Washington law also sets a paperwork deadline: by October 1, 2027, an employer must make reasonable efforts to provide written notice to all current and former employees and independent contractors whose noncompetition covenant is still within its effective time period that those covenants are void.

Statutes move.

Everything above is quoted or summarized from the statute texts as our research read them on October 2, 2026.

Bills amend these codes and courts apply them.

Before any covenant goes into an offer letter, an offer addendum or a separation agreement, have employment counsel check your state's current text.

It is not in effect, and the agency has since moved to walk away from defending it.

As of October 2, 2026, the FTC's own status page says the Noncompete Rule is not in effect and is not enforceable.

The sequence that page records: on August 20, 2024, a district court issued an order stopping the FTC from enforcing the rule; the FTC appealed on October 18, 2024; and on September 5, 2025, the FTC took steps to dismiss its own appeal in the Fifth Circuit.

For a firm weighing a staff covenant, the practical takeaway is that the federal rule is not in effect and not enforceable, so non-compete enforceability is state law.

That is why the section above is a list of state codes rather than a single federal standard, and why the states in it take such different approaches.

Keep the two versions separate, because they raise different questions.

An employee non-solicit says a departing staff member will not recruit your employees; a client non-solicit says they will not solicit your clients.

Both are covenants on a nonlawyer staff member, so both start where the non-compete analysis starts: your state's law decides.

Of the provisions our research verified for this page, only Oklahoma's was recorded as addressing solicitation.

Oklahoma's 15 O.S. § 15-219A lets a former employee work in the same or similar business as long as they do not directly solicit the sale of goods, services or a combination of goods and services from the established customers of the former employer — and conflicting contract terms are void.

On the statute's text, the employee's move to a competitor is protected, and the condition on that protection is not directly soliciting the former employer's established customers.

Read that way, Oklahoma is a state where a customer non-solicit is what the legislature left standing, not a broad bar on going to work down the street.

The employee version has less on the books in our research.

We did not verify what any of these statutes says about recruiting co-workers, so what your state does with a staff employee non-solicit was not something we checked — put the actual clause in front of your employment counsel.

The same hedge covers the other states whose statutes appear above: our research verified what each says about noncompetes, but outside Oklahoma it did not resolve how far a state's text reaches a solicitation clause.

One boundary worth keeping sharp: everything on this page is the staff analysis.

When the person signing is a lawyer, a different rule sits on top of the contract question — the attorney non-competes page owns that one.

Whether or not your state leaves room for a covenant, a staff agreement can carry confidentiality terms alongside one — and confidentiality is the part of the agreement this page can describe generically.

The moving parts below are the same kind of terms wherever your firm sits; what they can lawfully reach is state law again, and that part belongs with counsel.

The moving parts of a staff confidentiality provision:

• A definition. What the firm treats as confidential — client information, fee and billing arrangements, matter files, practice documents. The definition is what you and a departing staff member both point to when a question comes up.
• The promise. Not to use the firm's confidential information outside the job, and not to disclose it to anyone else.
• The duration. How long the obligation runs after the person leaves.
• The return. Firm property, files and system access go back at departure.

What this page cannot tell you is how far a confidentiality clause reaches in your state — and California shows why the question needs counsel rather than inference.

Its Business and Professions Code 16600(a) voids "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind" to that extent: words written broadly, and not limited to agreements titled non-compete.

How that text applies to a confidentiality provision was not something our research resolved, and the same is true of every other state's statute on this page.

The breadth sits in the statute text; the application is counsel's call.

Employer information, not legal advice. This page describes the state statutes and the federal rule status our research verified as of October 2, 2026; it does not tell you what your state's current text allows. Confirm any staff covenant, non-solicit or confidentiality term with your employment counsel — and Washington's current adjusted figures with its Department of Labor & Industries — before you use one.