Veterinary Non-Competes in Montana
Montana's § 28-2-703 voids a FULL restraint on trade, but courts review a PARTIAL restraint — an ordinary employment non-compete — for reasonableness: limited in time or place, supported by good consideration, and reasonable to the employer, the employee, and the public.
Montana has no separate healthcare-practitioner non-compete statute, so a veterinarian's covenant is measured the same way as any other profession's.
The only two statutory exceptions cover selling a business's goodwill and dissolving a partnership.
Last verified September 2026.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Permitted — judged on reasonableness
State statute — Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 (full restraints on trade void; partial restraints reviewed for reasonableness), with narrow statutory exceptions at § 28-2-704 (sale of goodwill of a business) and § 28-2-705 (dissolution of a partnership).
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: No healthcare-specific non-compete statute.
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 voids a contract that restrains someone from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business — but Montana's Supreme Court limits that void rule to a FULL restraint on trade. An ordinary employment non-compete is a PARTIAL restraint, and courts instead review it for reasonableness: it must be limited in time or place, supported by good consideration, and reasonable to the employer, the employee, and the public.
Not applicable — Montana has not enacted a health care practitioner non-compete statute. A veterinarian's covenant is measured under the same general § 28-2-703 framework as any other profession's, with no separate healthcare-specific carve-out to check.
No wage or income threshold. Montana's rule turns on whether a covenant is a full or partial restraint and, for a partial restraint, whether it is reasonable — not on what the veterinarian earns. The two statutory exceptions likewise turn on the type of transaction, a business sale or a partnership dissolution, not on income.
No fixed statutory cap for an ordinary employment non-compete: as a partial restraint, its time and place limits are tested for reasonableness under case law rather than measured against a number written into the statute. The two statutory exceptions carry a geography cap only: § 28-2-704(2) lets a sale-of-business covenant reach the city or county where the business's principal office sits, a city in an adjacent county, or an adjacent county itself, and § 28-2-705 applies that same cap to a partnership-dissolution covenant.
Not stated in the sources read.
Section 28-2-704(1) lets a person who sells a business's goodwill agree with the buyer not to run a similar business, for as long as the buyer or the buyer's successor keeps operating a like business; § 28-2-704(2) caps that covenant's geography to the city or county holding the business's principal office, a city in an adjacent county, or an adjacent county itself. Section 28-2-705 applies the identical geographic cap to an agreement among partners, made on dissolving a partnership, that one or more of them will not run a similar business in those areas.
Not stated in the sources read.
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 traces to the 1895 Civil Code; § 28-2-704 was last amended in 2009, and § 28-2-705 was last amended in 1983. The row records no changes found for 2023–2026.
What Montana’s text actually says
“Any contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided for by 28-2-704 or 28-2-705, is to that extent void.”
Montana voids full restraints on trade; partial restraints are reviewed for reasonableness
Section 28-2-703 voids a contract that restrains a person from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business — but only to the extent it is a FULL restraint.
The Montana Supreme Court draws that line in Wrigg v.
Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (Mont. 2011): a full restraint on trade is void outright, absent an express statutory exception, while a PARTIAL restraint — an ordinary employment non-compete is one — is reviewed for reasonableness under a three-part test: the restriction must be limited in time or place, supported by good consideration, and reasonable to the employer, the employee, and the public.
Wrigg also holds that an employer must show a legitimate business interest as a threshold matter before a partial restraint is enforced at all, and that an employer who ends the relationship itself, by termination or by not renewing, normally does not have one.
For an associate veterinarian, that means how — and why — the relationship ended can matter as much as the covenant's own wording.
“Any contract by which anyone is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than is provided for by 28-2-704 or 28-2-705, is to that extent void.”
No healthcare-specific statute — veterinarians are measured under the general rule
Montana has not enacted a health care practitioner non-compete statute.
The research behind this page finds no Montana statute naming physicians, nurses, or any other health profession for non-compete purposes.
A veterinarian's covenant is measured under the same general § 28-2-703 framework — a full restraint void, a partial restraint reviewed for reasonableness — that applies to every other lawful profession, trade, or business in the state; there is no separate healthcare track to check.
Selling a practice, or a partner's exit, are the only two statutory exceptions
Section 28-2-704(1) lets someone who sells the goodwill of a business agree with the buyer not to run a similar business, for as long as the buyer or the buyer's successor keeps operating a like business.
That covenant's geography is capped by § 28-2-704(2) to the city or county where the business's principal office sits, a city in an adjacent county, or an adjacent county itself.
Section 28-2-705 extends the identical geographic cap to an agreement among partners, made when a partnership dissolves, that one or more of them will not run a similar business in those same areas.
For a veterinarian buying into or selling out of a Montana practice, that means the covenant tied to that sale or exit is drawn from a different, narrower statute than the reasonableness test that governs an ordinary employment non-compete.
What this page does not answer for Montana
The research behind this page reads Montana's statute in full, together with the Montana Supreme Court's decisions in Wrigg v.
Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (2011) and, on whether continued employment alone is sufficient consideration for a covenant signed after the job already began, Access Organics, Inc. v.
Hernandez (2008).
Neither case addresses how client or staff non-solicitation clauses are treated, or how a Montana court would modify — rather than simply decline to enforce — an overbroad partial-restraint covenant.
Those gaps matter most at a buy-in or buy-out, where a covenant may be drafted alongside the purchase terms.
They are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule — take them to a Montana attorney with the whole agreement in hand.
Have the agreement itself reviewed
Start with the mechanics
The reasonableness test, what a radius is measured from, the access-to-care argument, and the difference between a non-compete and a non-solicitation clause are covered in the national guide to veterinary non-competes. This page covers only what is specific to Montana.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Montana law void veterinary non-competes?
Not automatically.
Mont.
Code Ann. § 28-2-703 voids a FULL restraint on trade, but Montana's Supreme Court reviews a PARTIAL restraint — what an ordinary employment non-compete is — for reasonableness instead: it must be limited in time or place, supported by good consideration, and reasonable to the employer, the employee, and the public.
Montana has no separate rule that treats a veterinarian's covenant differently from any other worker's.
Have a Montana attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements review your specific covenant against that test.
Does Montana's healthcare non-compete law protect veterinarians?
Montana has not enacted a health care practitioner non-compete statute at all — not one that names veterinarians, and not one that names physicians or any other health profession.
A veterinarian's non-compete is measured under the same general § 28-2-703 framework as any other worker's contract, with no separate healthcare-specific law layered on top.
A Montana employment attorney can confirm whether any newer statute has since changed that.
Is there a salary threshold below which a Montana veterinarian's non-compete doesn't apply?
No. Montana's rule under § 28-2-703 turns on whether a covenant is a full or partial restraint on trade and, for a partial restraint, whether it is reasonable — not on a wage or pay threshold.
The statute's only two exceptions turn on the type of transaction, selling a business's goodwill or dissolving a partnership, not on what the veterinarian earns.
A Montana attorney who handles veterinary employment agreements can tell you how the reasonableness test bears on your own contract.
Does selling my share of a Montana veterinary practice change how a non-compete is treated?
Yes, potentially.
Section 28-2-704(1) lets someone who sells a business's goodwill agree with the buyer not to run a similar business, capped by § 28-2-704(2) to the city or county where the business's principal office sits, a city in an adjacent county, or an adjacent county itself; § 28-2-705 applies the same cap to a partner's exit on a partnership's dissolution.
That is a narrower, different rule than the reasonableness test that governs an ordinary employee non-compete.
Before signing a buy-in or buy-out covenant, have a Montana attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions review it alongside the purchase agreement.
Does signing a non-compete after I already started working change anything in Montana?
It can.
Access Organics, Inc. v.
Hernandez (Mont. 2008) held that for an at-will employee who received no added job security, raise, promotion, or access to confidential information in exchange, continued employment alone was not sufficient new consideration for a non-compete signed only after the job had already begun.
Separately, Wrigg v.
Junkermier (Mont. 2011) holds an employer must show a legitimate business interest before such a covenant is enforced at all, and that an employer who ends the relationship itself often lacks one.
Ask a Montana employment attorney how both rules apply to your own timeline.
More Montana Non-Compete Resources
Sources
- Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 — Montana Code Annotated (official, Montana Legislature) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-704 — Montana Code Annotated (official, Montana Legislature) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-705 — Montana Code Annotated (official, Montana Legislature) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- Wrigg v. Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C., 265 P.3d 646 (Mont. 2011) — Midpage Legal Research (retrieved 2026-09-22)
- Access Organics, Inc. v. Hernandez, 175 P.3d 899 (Mont. 2008) — Midpage Legal Research (retrieved 2026-09-22)
Sourced from Montana’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-703 traces to the 1895 Civil Code; § 28-2-704 was last amended in 2009, and § 28-2-705 was last amended in 1983. The row records no changes found for 2023–2026. This page is general information, not legal advice.