For years, restrictive covenants have been a standard feature of the patent attorney employment landscape. Non-compete clauses,
lengthy notice periods and garden leave have all been used to protect client relationships, confidential information and team stability.
That protection may soon look rather different.
The UK Government is actively considering reforms to non-compete clauses, with the stated aim of making it easier for employees to move between businesses and helping innovative companies recruit talent. Whilst the final shape of any legislation remains uncertain, patent attorney firms and potential candidates may need to start thinking about what a more mobile market could mean for them.
In November 2025, the Department for Business and Trade published a working paper seeking views on a range of options for reforming non-compete clauses in employment contracts.
The Government stated that the purpose of the review was to consider whether reform could support economic growth by reducing barriers to labour mobility. The paper considered a number of potential approaches, including:
- An outright ban on non-compete clauses.
- A statutory cap on the duration of non-competes.
- Restrictions based on employee salary levels.
- Combinations of the above approaches.
The Government described the exercise as part of a broader discussion around “whether and how to take proposals forward”.
Since then, momentum has continued to build. In October 2026, Prime Minister Andy Burnham announced plans to introduce legislation so that non-compete clauses would “no longer be a barrier to hiring” and suggested that employees should not be prevented from joining competitors or starting rival businesses.
Although detailed proposals have not yet been published, the direction of travel appears increasingly clear: restrictions on employee mobility are under political scrutiny.
In recent years patent attorney firms in the UK have leaned toward tightening up restrictive covenants and non-competes, making it difficult for attorneys to move positions particularly with a client following.
If non-competes become more difficult to enforce, limited in duration, or removed altogether, firms may need to rethink how they protect their commercial interests. It could however present opportunities and create more of a market for senior hires moving with a book of business, similarly to what happens in the USA.
As a consequence of these potential changes, firms are likely to place much greater emphasis on other forms of protection.
These may include:
- Non-solicitation provisions.
- Non-dealing provisions.
- Confidentiality obligations.
- Intellectual property protections.
However, there is also a question as to whether future reforms could extend beyond pure non-compete clauses. The Government’s working paper specifically invited discussion around wider restrictive practices. More recently, Government statements have suggested that notice periods and garden leave arrangements may also come under review. For firms hoping simply to replace one restriction with another, there may be a degree of caution required.
Perhaps the greatest concern for firm leadership will be the increased possibility of team moves. A single attorney departure can be managed. The loss of an entire practice group is a different proposition altogether. If restrictions on employee movement are reduced, competitors may be more willing to pursue strategic team hires, particularly where a team services a coherent client base and possesses recognised expertise in a specific technical discipline. This is likely to increase the importance of succession planning, relationship management and partner retention strategies.
At the time of writing, no changes have yet taken effect and non-compete clauses remain governed by existing principles of UK employment law. However, the policy debate has moved a long way from whether reform will be considered to what form that reform will ultimately take.