.png)
.jpg)
When a doctor at a Utah medical practice faced unexpected termination, he already had a generous severance package on the table. But money wasn't his biggest concern. What he needed was protection—from overly restrictive covenants that could derail his career and legal exposure that could haunt him for years.
This case study reveals how strategic severance negotiation can accomplish far more than squeezing out extra dollars. Sometimes, the most valuable victories have nothing to do with your bank account.
Our client, an experienced doctor, had spent years building his career at a multi-location practice. When the organization faced financial difficulties, they terminated his position—not for cause, but simply because they couldn't afford to keep him.
His existing employment agreement included severance provisions that were already substantial:
• Several months of "garden leave" (remaining on payroll while transitioning)
• Several months of severance pay following the garden leave period
• Full salary continuation during both periods
For most professionals, this would seem like a fair exit. The problem wasn't the compensation—it was everything else in the severance agreement.
When the practice presented the formal severance agreement, our client immediately recognized several red flags. The document was packed with restrictive provisions that went far beyond standard separation terms.
The severance agreement contained non-competition provisions that would have prevented him from working for any competing medical practice in his specialty area. Despite being terminated through no fault of his own, these restrictions would have effectively frozen his career for a full year after separation.
For a medical professional who had dedicated years to building expertise in a specific field, this was potentially devastating. The geographic scope was unreasonably wide, and the definition of "competing services" was vague enough to prevent him from practicing medicine altogether.
The agreement also included sweeping non-solicitation provisions that would have prohibited him from contacting any patients, staff members, or business associates connected to the practice. While some protection for the employer is reasonable, these terms extended far beyond what was necessary or reasonable.
The confidentiality clauses went well beyond protecting patient information (which he was already obligated to maintain). These provisions were so broad they could have prevented him from discussing basic industry practices or operational knowledge common throughout the medical field.
Most concerning: these confidentiality obligations extended for a full year after termination, despite his employment having already ended.
The severance agreement contained provisions that directly conflicted with language in his original employment agreement and other ancillary contracts. These inconsistencies created legal ambiguity that could have been exploited against him later.
The proposed agreement required him to release all potential claims against the practice—but imposed no reciprocal release protecting him. This created significant exposure, particularly around potential medical malpractice claims.
If a patient later sued him for malpractice, and as a result the medical practice sued him for contribution, he would be unable to counterclaim or seek indemnification because he had already released those rights.
The agreement prohibited him from making any negative statements about the practice, its practices, or its leadership. However, the practice faced no similar restriction, leaving them free to damage his professional reputation without consequence.
While he was required to keep all terms of the severance agreement confidential, the practice had no such obligation. They could disclose the terms to other industry contacts, competitors, or potential future employers.
Although we did seek additional severance pay, that was not our client's main goal. We took a comprehensive approach to protecting our client's future. Our goals were clear:
1. Eliminate or significantly narrow all restrictive covenants
2. Ensure mutual protections for both parties
3. Remove inconsistent or ambiguous language
4. Protect his ability to continue practicing medicine
We presented the practice with a detailed analysis of the problematic provisions and proposed specific revisions. Our position was strengthened by the fact that he was being terminated without cause—making aggressive restrictive covenants legally questionable and potentially unenforceable.
Through careful negotiation, we achieved transformative changes to the severance agreement:
The non-competition provisions were removed entirely. Our client was free to accept employment with any medical facility, including direct competitors, immediately upon separation.
This single change potentially saved him from a year of unemployment or forced career transition.
We reduced the non-solicitation restrictions to a narrow, reasonable scope. He retained the ability to maintain professional relationships while the practice maintained protection for their specific business interests.
The confidentiality provisions were rewritten to focus specifically on truly proprietary information and patient data. Language that would have prevented him from discussing general medical practices or operational knowledge was removed.
We negotiated a bilateral release. Both parties waived claims against each other, protecting our client from future malpractice allegations and other potential litigation.
This mutual release was particularly valuable given the nature of medical practice, where claims can emerge years after the underlying events.
The non-disparagement clause became mutual. Neither party could make negative statements about the other, protecting his professional reputation as effectively as it protected the practice.
Both parties became bound to confidentiality regarding the agreement's terms. The practice could not disclose the severance details to others in the industry.
We identified and resolved all conflicts between the severance agreement and his other contractual obligations, creating clear, consistent terms that eliminated future ambiguity.
Our client ended the negotiation with the same monetary compensation he was initially offered. Not a single additional dollar changed hands.
Yet he was profoundly satisfied with the outcome—because we had achieved something far more valuable than money.
He gained:
• Career Freedom: The ability to immediately pursue opportunities in his field without legal restrictions
• Reputation Protection: Mutual non-disparagement ensuring his professional standing remained intact
• Legal Security: Protection from future claims and counterclaims through the mutual release
• Clear Terms: Elimination of ambiguous language that could have created future disputes
• Confidentiality: Assurance that the separation would remain private
When he evaluated the renegotiated agreement against the original offer, the transformation was dramatic. He moved from a position of significant legal exposure and career limitation to one of security and freedom.
This case demonstrates several critical principles about severance negotiation:
Many professionals focus exclusively on the dollar amount in severance negotiations. But restrictive covenants, broad releases, and one-sided protections can cost you far more than a few months of additional pay.
Consider the full scope of what you're signing away before accepting any severance offer.
Non-compete and non-solicitation agreements often seem set in stone. They're not. Particularly when you're being terminated without cause, employers have weak grounds for imposing aggressive restrictions on your future.
One-way protections create asymmetric risk. If you're releasing claims against your employer, they should release claims against you. If you're prohibited from disparagement, so should they be.
Many professionals rush through severance documentation, eager to finalize the separation and move on. This is precisely when you need to slow down and examine every provision.
The agreements you sign on your way out the door can impact you for years.
An experienced employment attorney can spot problematic provisions that seem innocuous to non-lawyers. We identified inconsistencies, overbroad terms, and missing protections that our client hadn't initially recognized.
Severance agreements warrant particularly careful review when:
• You work in a specialized field with limited opportunities
• Your agreement includes restrictive covenants (non-compete, non-solicitation)
• You're being asked to sign broad releases
• The terms conflict with other agreements you've signed
• You have potential exposure to future claims (like medical malpractice)
• You're at an executive or director level
• The agreement imposes ongoing obligations after termination
In these situations, the cost of professional legal review is minimal compared to the potential consequences of signing problematic terms.
Our client left his position with complete clarity about his rights and obligations. He could pursue any opportunity in his field without looking over his shoulder. He had peace of mind that the practice couldn't make claims against him or damage his reputation.
Most importantly, he could move forward with his career immediately—not a year from now, after restrictive covenants expired.
That's the real value of strategic severance negotiation. Sometimes winning means protecting what you already have rather than fighting for more.
At The Utah Employment Lawyer (Crook Legal Group), we understand that effective employment representation extends beyond maximizing severance pay. We focus on comprehensive protection that safeguards your career, reputation, and future opportunities.
If you're facing termination or reviewing a severance agreement, we can help you:
• Identify problematic provisions in your severance offer
• Negotiate elimination or reduction of restrictive covenants
• Ensure mutual protections for both parties
• Resolve inconsistent or ambiguous contract language
• Protect your ability to continue working in your field
Disclaimer: This case study is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Names, employers, and identifying details have been changed to protect client confidentiality. Every case is unique, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.
.avif)