Executive Summary
Non-compete clauses are common features of employment agreements around the business world and are often used to dissuade companies from 'poaching' another's employees, and/or to prevent employees (at least for a certain time period) from taking the knowledge gained from working at one company to a competitor. Which can allow companies to protect the 'investments' they have made in their employees and maintain continuity amongst their staff.
However, these agreements can also be unduly restrictive towards employees, limiting their ability to advance within their chosen industry, which is especially problematic in skilled professions that might have required years of education and training just to enter in the first place. Further, critics of non-compete agreements argue that they restrict dynamism in the overall economy by making it harder for businesses to hire (as the pool of applicants will be smaller in industries where non-competes are prevalent), and for employees subject to non-competes to start new companies.
With these factors in mind, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in April of 2024 announced a final rule banning most non-competes nationwide that is expected to take effect (pending legal challenges) on September 4, 2024. To comply with the rule, employers are required to provide written notice to relevant workers (which include employees and independent contractors, among other categories), letting them know that their non-compete agreements are unenforceable and will not be enforced.
Notably, the ban includes exemptions for "senior executives" who previously had signed a non-compete (new non-competes are banned for all employees, including senior executives) and in the case of a "bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person's ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity's operating assets". This latter exemption means that financial advisors with an ownership interest in their company (even a very small one) could still be subject to a non-compete as a term of the sale of their stake (which could impact how they value receiving an ownership interest in their firm).
Furthermore, the regulation does not prohibit non-solicit agreements (which restrict a departing employee from soliciting the clients of their former employer for a specified time period), which are more common than non-competes in the financial advice industry, meaning that non-solicit agreements can remain in place, and might even become more prevalent amongst firms that are no longer able to enforce non-competes. But because enforcing non-solicits can be less clear-cut than enforcing non-competes (given that it is more difficult to tell whether an individual is actively soliciting their former employer's clients compared to obtaining a job at a competitor or starting their own business), the number of legal battles over non-solicits could increase as their use rises. Which could make it more advantageous for firms and advisors alike to consider a more equitable, cooperative approach than strict on-competes or non-solicits to deciding which clients an advisor can solicit if they do eventually leave the firm.
Ultimately, the key point is that the FTC's ban on non-competes may provide advisors with increased flexibility to move amongst firms within the financial advice industry, while also offering the opportunity for both financial advisory firms and their advisors to revisit their employment agreements… not only to ensure that they comply with the FTC's final rule, but also so that they better meet the needs advisors and their firms!
Authors:
Non-compete agreements are common around the business world and are often used to dissuade companies from 'poaching' another's employees, and/or to prevent employees (at least for a certain time period) from taking the knowledge gained from working at one company to a competitor. Which can allow companies to protect the 'investments' they have made in their employees (e.g., training on proprietary processes) and maintain continuity amongst their staff (as an employee subject to a non-compete would in theory be incentivized to stick around longer, since leaving might require them to enter another profession entirely in order to stay employed).
However, non-compete agreements can also be unduly restrictive towards employees, limiting their ability to advance within their chosen industry (e.g., by moving to a more senior position at a competing firm or starting their own business), which is especially problematic in skilled professions that might have required years of education and training just to enter in the first place. Further, critics of non-compete agreements argue that they restrict dynamism in the overall economy by making it harder for businesses to hire (as the pool of applicants will be smaller in industries where non-competes are prevalent), and for employees subject to non-competes to start new companies.
With these factors in mind, several states have banned non-compete agreements or at least have restricted them to only certain positions (e.g., limiting them to highly paid workers). To standardize this patchwork of regulations surrounding non-competes at the national level, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in early 2023 proposed a rule that would ban non-compete agreements nationwide as an "unfair method of competition", with only limited exceptions. And after a public comment period, the FTC in April of 2024 announced a final rule banning most non-competes nationwide (with a few deviations from the proposed rule based on public feedback received) that is expected to take effect (pending legal challenges) on September 4, 2024.
Federal Trade Commission Bans (Most) Non-Competes
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines a "non-compete" as: "A term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from: (i) seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or (ii) operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition. For the purposes of this [non-compete definition], term or condition of employment includes, but is not limited to, a contractual term or workplace policy, whether written or oral."
Nerd Note:
While the FTC's non-compete ban is expected to go into effect on September 4, 2024, it has been hit with legal challenges, including a lawsuit filed the same day the final rule was announced. Opponents of the non-compete ban argue, among other things, that the FTC overstepped its authority regarding the regulation of "unfair methods of competition" in creating an all-encompassing ban on non-competes. Which means that the rule's ultimate fate will likely be decided in the courts, which could choose to issue an injunction to temporarily block enforcement of the rule until a final ruling is made.
In this context, the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) final rule, under its authority to regulate "unfair methods of competition", is meant to serve as a nationwide ban on both current (i.e., already existing) and future (i.e., created after the rule's issuance) non-compete agreements as defined above. However, there are some exceptions, including industries over which the FTC does not have jurisdiction (e.g., banks and credit unions, among others), existing non-compete agreements for "senior executives", and non-competes related to the "bona fide sale" (i.e., not an internal restructuring) of a business or the sale of an individual's stake in a company (which could have implications for financial advisors with a partnership stake in their firm).
A Ban On New And Existing Non-Competes
Under the final rule, new non-compete agreements are banned, and existing non-competes can no longer be enforced as of the effective date of the rule (expected to be September 4, 2024). Notably, this restriction applies not only to a company's employees, but also extends more broadly to an "independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, or sole proprietor who provides a service to a client or customer". To comply with the rule, employers are required to provide written notice to relevant workers, letting them know that their non-compete agreements are unenforceable and will not be enforced. (The FTC provided model language employers can use for this notice on page 565 of the Final Rule.)
Nerd Note:
Do you recall if you even signed a non-compete in the first place? In some cases, employees sign "a lot of paperwork" when being hired for a new job, of which they don't always keep a personal copy. This can create challenges when they later aren't sure if there was a non-compete provision in their employment agreement, as it can be awkward to ask HR (or in the case of a very small firm, the owner/founder) for a copy of their own employment agreement years later ("why do you ask, are you thinking about leaving!?"). However, the notice requirement of the FTC's ban on non-competes means that those who aren't certain about whether their employment agreement contained a non-compete should receive notice from their employer, when the rule takes effect, affirmatively clarifying if there was a non-compete (that is no longer valid). On the other hand, requesting a copy of the employment agreement for a financial advisor will likely still be necessary, given the high likelihood that if a non-compete provision was included in their original agreement, non-solicit or similar restrictions were also present, that will likely still apply.
One exception to the ban on existing non-competes is for "senior executives" who previously had signed a non-compete (new non-competes are banned for all employees, including senior executives). The FTC defines "senior executive" as an individual in a "policy-making position" and who earned at least $151,164 in total compensation in the preceding year (or the year before termination).
Notably, there is some ambiguity about what exactly entails a "policy-making position" that would qualify for an exception from the ban on existing non-competes: While certain executive officers (e.g., a company's president or chief executive officer) would clearly fall under this definition, the FTC also includes "any other officer of a business entity who has policy-making authority, or any other natural person who has policy-making authority for the business entity similar to an officer with policy-making authority", which could leave some in positions with arguably some policy-making authority (e.g., HR or Operations department directors), but who don't rank among senior firm leadership, in an ambiguous situation with regards to the enforceability of any existing non-competes.
In the advisor context, though, it would appear that this "senior executives" exemption would only apply to advisors who also exert control over the policies of the firm as a whole (i.e., regarding how employees and the business are managed), rather than 'just' how they manage their own clients. As a result, a typical financial advisor position – even one with income well above the $151,164 threshold – would still have its non-compete provisions voided after the effective date of the ban. But an advisor who also has an" executive" position that has some authority to set policy for how other advisors at the firm work with their clients – for instance, a Director of Financial Planning, Chief Investment Officer, etc. – may have an existing non-compete 'grandfathered' in if their income is also above the threshold.
A Key Exemption To The Non-Compete Ban For Bona Fide Sale-Of-Business Transactions
While the FTC's non-compete ban covers most agreements between employers and employees (other than the "senior executive" exemption described above), it provides for an exemption to the ban that applies in the case of a "bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person's ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity's operating assets".
This exemption is meant to provide protection to the buyer in a business transaction to ensure that the "goodwill" (i.e., the intangible assets associated with the purchased company) remains with the buyer. For example, in the case of a sale of a financial advisory firm, a non-compete agreement could ensure that the selling firm owners do not simply open up a new firm and seek to attract their former clients after the deal is completed (and they were already fully compensated for that client goodwill).
Notably, while the originally proposed version of the non-compete ban limited the ability to impose non-compete agreements only on those who owned at least 25% of the selling company, the final rule removed this ownership limitation, meaning that the terms of a transaction could, for instance, require all owners of a selling firm, with any ownership stake, to be subject to non-compete agreements for a certain period of time after the transaction closes.
Which means that employee advisors, who otherwise might not be subject to a non-compete agreement under the "employee" part of their arrangement under the FTC's ban, could still find themselves subject to one if they have an ownership interest (even a 'small' 1%-of-less partner stake!) and their firm is sold.
In addition, it's notable that the "bona fide sale" clause not only applies when "the business" itself is sold – it also applies to the sale of a personal's ownership interest in a business entity. Which appears to mean that in cases where a financial advisor is a partner/equity-owner who decides to sell their shares back to the firm (perhaps in connection with their departure from the firm), a non-compete may be attached to such a transaction in the sell-back negotiation process.
Client Non-Solicit And Non-Disclosure Agreements Allowed Under The FTC Rule
While the FTC's final rule imposes a near-blanket ban on non-compete agreements, it states that the rule does not prohibit certain other types of employment agreement clauses, including non-solicit and non-disclosure agreements, as these agreements "do not by their terms prohibit a worker from or penalize a worker for seeking or accepting other work or starting a business after they leave their job", according to the FTC's final rule. Notably, the continued ability to use these agreements will provide companies with a measure of protection regarding their trade secrets (in the case of non-disclosures) and their client relationships (in the case on non-solicits), even as they are no longer able to enforce non-competes.
This allowance is particularly relevant for financial advisory firms, which historically have tended to use non-solicits much more often than non-competes in order to retain control over their client relationships (at least for the period in which the non-solicit is in force) when an advisor leaves for another firm or to start their own. Though, in reality, advisor non-solicit agreements can end up being quite messy given the challenge of determining whether an advisor is soliciting their former clients.
Nerd Note:
While the FTC has made it clear that non-disclosure and the more common (for financial advisors) non-solicit provisions remain permitted, the situation is less clear as it pertains to a "non-acceptance" clause in an employment contract. Unlike a non-solicit – which bars an employee from soliciting the clients of their former firm – a non-accept bars an employee from even accepting clients who choose to follow and pursue the advisor. Yet the FTC's definition of a non-compete itself is that a (no-longer-permissible) non-compete is one that "prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from… seeking or accepting work". Which means while a non-solicit is permitted, a non-acceptance clause that prevents an advisor from accepting a client who wants to engage them for work as a financial advisor may be deemed by the FTC as being 'too close' to a non-compete and therefore banned. Expect in the coming year, that either the FTC will put out additional guidance regarding non-accepts… or that an employer will try to impose one, an employee will sue to challenge it, and the courts will interpret whether or when a non-accept goes too far.
No More Non-Competes Means More (Messier) Financial Advisor Non-Solicit Agreements?
While non-compete agreements are less common than non-solicit agreements in the financial advice industry, those firms that do currently include non-compete clauses in their employment agreements could choose to add non-solicit clauses to protect their interest in holding on to clients after an advisor departs. Nevertheless, given the practical difficulty in enforcing non-solicit agreements (or more specifically, determining when they were actually violated in the first place), these firms (and perhaps some of those that currently attempt to enforce non-solicits?) could look to alternative ways to protect their interests when it comes to retaining clients when an advisor departs the firm.
The Challenge Of Enforcing Non-Solicit Agreements For Advisory Firms
While the language of individual non-solicit agreements can vary by firm, the basic idea is that an advisor who leaves the firm (often for another firm or to start their own) will not be allowed to solicit their previous firm's clients, typically for a set period of time (e.g., 1 year). Given the deep relationship created between advisors and their clients, non-solicits can help a firm retain the clients of a departing advisor by restricting the advisor's ability to reach out to their former clients to invite them to move with them to their new firm. The time period when the non-solicit is in force provides firms with the opportunity to transition the departed advisor's clients to a new advisor with the hope that the client will decide to stick with the firm once the non-solicit period ends (at which point the departed advisor has no restrictions on how they can communicate with their former clients).
Nonetheless, while potential violations of non-compete agreements typically are clear (i.e., it's relatively easy to tell whether an advisor has started working at a new firm or started their own), the lines are much blurrier when it comes to non-solicit agreements. For instance, because a solicitation can easily be made using private communication (e.g., the advisor calls or emails their former clients to invite them to join the advisor at their new firm), a firm that finds many clients leaving after the departure of an advisor might not know the exact circumstances: Did the advisor actively solicit them (which could be a violation of the non-solicit agreement), or did the clients find the advisor's new firm on their own, perhaps by searching online (which typically would not be a violation, as clients have the freedom to choose the firm and advisor with whom they want to work)? In such cases, the firm might choose to take legal action against their former advisor to determine whether they followed the guidelines of their non-solicit agreement (which can generate hefty legal bills for both parties in the discovery process of trying to determine whether the advisor really solicited or clients followed of their own volition!).
Furthermore, while certain actions (e.g., an advisor calling or emailing former clients inviting them to their new firm) are almost certainly likely to be seen as solicitations, other actions are murkier. For instance, it's common for advisors to announce career moves on their social media accounts (particularly on LinkedIn, which is built for this type of communication). Given that many clients might 'follow' or be 'connected' with their advisors on social media, they are very likely to see this change announcement… and then can find the advisor's new firm online and reach out to connect. However, it's unclear whether this would count as the advisor soliciting their former clients – after all, the advisor typically would be able to tell whether their clients follow their social media accounts – or merely the more benign (in terms of a potential non-solicit violation) result of the advisor simply making a 'public' announcement via their social media accounts to reflect their new job for a wide range of consumers… that happens to include their former clients seeing the update based on their own online activity. All of which could ultimately create additional confusion for both firms and advisors (and potential legal challenges), particularly when the non-solicit agreement does not detail the infinitely varying ways an advisor could directly or indirectly "solicit" their former clients.
Nerd Note:
When an employee leaves a firm, it's not uncommon to offer a severance payment, with 'strings attached' to limit what the employee does to compete after they leave. If the firm did not already have a non-compete or non-solicit in place, one alternative approach is the use of a "Garden Leave" policy, which keeps the employee on the payroll but away from the office and their employment duties… effectively paying them to 'sit out' for a period of time. In the context of financial advisory firms, Garden Leave policies become a way to prevent the advisor from competing during the Garden Leave period (allowing the firm more time to pursue existing clients before the advisor can set up with a new firm). And notably, to the extent that a Garden Leave policy entails keeping the employee on payroll, it does not appear to violate the FTC's ban on non-competes (which only apply to post-employment restrictions, not while-the-employee-is-still-employed restrictions). On the other hand, a Garden Leave policy is typically negotiated (or at least, offered and chosen to be accepted) by the employee at the time they give notice, which means they cannot be mandated and firms thus can't necessarily rely on them as a non-compete alternative. Nonetheless, to the extent the firm was going to pay severance anyway, Garden Leave provisions are likely to become more common amongst advisory firms in the wake of the FTC ban as at least one approach for the advisory firm to buy itself more time to retain the clients of a departing advisor (if the advisor is willing to accept the Garden Leave income payment in exchange for agreeing to sit out!).
Does The Exemption For Sales Transactions Make Small Partnership Equity Stakes Less Attractive For Financial Advisors?
Under the FTC's initial proposal for the non-compete ban, the exemption that would have allowed a non-compete to remain in place in the case of the sale of a business (or an individual's ownership interest in the business) would only have applied to individuals with at least a 25% ownership stake company. However, this minimum was eliminated in the final rule, such that any ownership stake in a business can still potentially have a non-compete provision attached to its sale.
As a result, partners in advisory firms with even 'small' ownership stakes (e.g., 2% or 1% or even less) could still find themselves subject to a non-compete agreement if their firm is sold, or even if they want to leave the firm and sell their equity stake back (whereas non-owner employees would be free to leave without any non-compete obligations).
Which means that going forward, financial advisors being offered ownership in their firms might not only evaluate whether the equity (e.g., shareholder) agreement includes a non-compete clause (and how long it lasts), but also consider whether receiving equity (and the proceeds from a potential sale) are worth the risk that they could become tied to the firm for a certain period in case of a sale. Especially since even if there are no non-compete restrictions in the current shareholder agreement (e.g., in the case of selling shares back to the firm), they could still be imposed as a contingency from a future buyer… and one that a 'small' partner might not be able to exert significant influence on to change the terms of the sale if they only have a small ownership stake but don't necessarily want to be the one who 'blows up' the deal for everyone by refusing to sign?
On the other hand, for advisory firms themselves, the M&A exemption might make offering at least small equity stakes to senior advisors more attractive, as it could serve as a way to discourage the advisors from leaving (by requiring a non-compete if the advisor leaves and sells back their stake to the company), and moreso could make a firm more attractive to potential buyers (who, in the current competitive environment for advisor talent, will likely be looking to retain the selling firm's advisors along with its client base), as they could require non-competes for advisors who are equity owners as a term of the sale in a way that couldn't be done if those senior advisors were 'just' key employees.
Nerd Note:
Notably, ownership-related non-compete agreements are far more feasible to be used in the RIA channel than amongst advisors working for broker-dealers. The reason is that the RIA structure more easily allows for shared ownership of the business entity itself (e.g., through partnership interests) that can actually be sold, whereas in broker-dealers advisors are representatives of the broker-dealer but don't own the B/D directly. As a result, when one broker "sells" and transitions to another firm, revenue that is shifted via changes in the broker-of-record, or by establishing a split rep code between the departing and successor brokers, have not engaged in a "bona fide sale" of an actual ownership interest… limiting the ability of a broker buying from another to impose a non-compete when taking over that broker's book of clients.
Potential Next Steps For Advisory Firms And Their Advisors In The Wake Of The FTC Ban On Non-Competes
With the effective date for the FTC's non-compete ban coming in September 2024, both advisory firms and their financial advisors might be considering their options to protect their respective interests. While firms that include non-compete clauses in their employment (and advisors subject to them) will face the most direct consequences of the FTC's final rule, other firms might consider whether their current agreements (e.g., non-solicits) are clear in their terms (e.g., what counts as a solicitation) and meet the desired balance of protecting the firm's interests while not being so onerous that they discourage financial advisors from joining the firm.
Review Your Financial Advisor Employment Agreement
Given that an advisor might have joined their firm years, or even decades, ago, they might not be fully aware of the non-compete, non-solicit, or other obligations included in their employment agreement. While firms will be required under the FTC rule to provide written notice to relevant workers letting them know that their non-compete agreements are unenforceable and will not be enforced, advisors should still consider reviewing their agreements to determine whether other (e.g., non-solicit) obligations apply. Further, because the FTC's rule doesn't go into effect until September (and is subject to legal challenges), advisors leaving their firms before that time (or if the courts halt the implementation of the FTC's non-compete ban) could still be subject to the terms of the non-compete (and therefore need to wait until the rule goes into effect).
In addition, for advisors who are considering leaving their firms in the wake of the FTC's ban on non-competes, an understanding of their other obligations (e.g., non-solicits, confidentiality provisions that bar them from taking client information when leaving) under their employment agreement could help prevent conflict (and potential legal action) with their firm. And given the sometimes messy nature of enforcing these agreements (e.g., what counts as a solicitation), consulting with a legal advisor who specializes in the financial advice industry (e.g., Beach Street Legal, RIA Lawyers, or Brightstar Law Group) could help ensure that the transition away from the firm goes as smoothly as possible.
An Impetus For Advisory Firms To Build Stronger Team Cultures
While non-compete agreements could be used to protect a firm's interest in holding onto clients following the departure of their advisor, they also discouraged advisors from leaving in the first place, as they would either have to 'sit out' the length of the non-compete or find a job in a different field. After the FTC's ban goes into effect, advisors previously subject to non-competes will find themselves with significantly more flexibility in leaving their current employer, suggesting that firms might consider other ways to keep advisors (and their clients) with the firm.
While firms could protect their interests through non-solicit agreements with their advisors (though current advisors might need to be incentivized to accept new agreements after their non-compete is no longer enforceable, if a non-solicit wasn't already present?), or increase their equity ownership program to increase the number of advisors with ownership stakes (that include non-compete clauses if the equity is sold back to the firm), another option is to build a stronger firm culture so that advisors do not want to leave in the first place. In fact, the FTC outright noted one of the reasons they viewed the non-compete ban as valid is that "in a well-functioning labor market, employers compete to retain their workers by improving working conditions" and "that firms that are concerned about retention have tools other than non-competes for retaining workers, including… competing on the merits to retain the worker's labor services" without 'needing' a non-compete. With the caveat that that means advisory firm owners will have to be more cognizant about how to actually make their advisory firms a more desirable place to work to 'compete' in the open marketplace!
Potential ways to do so include designing compensation models that motivate employees to perform well and stay with the firm (which could include equity ownership), offering benefits and perks that have been shown to attract and retain employees, designing career tracks that show employees how they can advance in their career at the firm, and/or creating a culture of appreciation to ensure employees feel recognized for their accomplishments (notably, steps such as these could help firms improve employee retention whether or not they currently use non-competes!).
The key point, though, is simply that many advisory firms don't use or rely upon non-competes because they try to create advisory firms and platforms that advisors wouldn't want to leave in the first place. But with the FTC's ban on non-competes, that approach shifts from a "best practice" to a more substantive requirement just to attract and retain advisor talent in the first place!
Crafting More Equitable Non-Solicits As Their Use Rises?
Non-solicit agreements have already become increasingly prevalent among independent advisory firms as more and more hire 'employee' service advisors to provide advice to existing client relationships that are 'handed off' to them. And the use of non-solicits will likely become even more popular in the wake of the FTC non-compete ban (at the least because firms previously using non-competes will likely still want to put something in place). Which means the terms of these non-solicit agreements will come into greater focus, such as whether a non-solicit agreement covers all of an employee advisor's clients, or only certain ones.
For instance, while it might be clear that the firm 'owns' the relationship with a client that the firm brought on itself and passed on to the advisor (thereby perhaps warranting a stricter non-solicit agreement), it would seem inappropriate to restrict an advisor from soliciting certain other clients (e.g., a personal friend or relative/family member that they brought in the first place) to their new firm.
In addition, there is also a fuzzy middle where it is less clear who owns the goodwill equity of the client relationship (e.g., if a firm brings in a prospect through its marketing, but the advisor 'closes the sale' and brings the individual on as a client, or the advisor brings in the prospect but does so using some of the firm's marketing resources or by leveraging its known brand in the local community). In these cases where the client is effectively a 'joint' client of both the firm and the advisor, it might be appropriate for the firm and the advisor to negotiate the specifics of how these client relationships will be handled under the firm's non-solicit agreement.
Rather than creating a blanket non-solicit agreement that covers all of an advisor's clients (from a relative to a client 'given' to them by the firm) in the same manner, another option is to craft an agreement that recognizes the "yours, mine, and ours" split of client relationships, allowing firms and advisors to set the terms for how those different types of client relationships will be handled in the event that there is ever a split (from which clients can be solicited or not, what client information can be taken or not, and whether compensatory payments are due back to the firm or not).
Download the Advisor/Client Relationship Equitable Split (ACRES) Agreement Template
For instance, advisory firms can use (and/or modify) the Advisor/Client Relationship Equitable Split (ACRES) Agreement template to their specifications (though firms and their advisors might choose to seek legal counsel for more complicated situations). Which not only creates a fairer delineation of the clients an advisor can solicit if they leave the firm (and help prevent the need for legal action), but can also build greater trust between the firm and their advisors by working together to come to an agreement that respects both sides' interests!
Ultimately, the key point is that the FTC's ban on non-competes will provide advisors subject to non-competes with increased flexibility to move amongst firms within the financial advice industry, and also offers the opportunity for both financial advisory firms and their advisors to revisit their employment agreements not only to ensure that they comply with the FTC's final rule, but also that they better meet the needs of both parties. In addition, the non-compete ban could inspire firms to explore other ways to retain their advisors (and their clients), whether by drafting more equitable non-solicit agreements, offering more attractive employee value propositions, and/or building a firm culture that encourages advisors (and their clients) to stay with the firm for the long haul!
