Veterinary Non-Competes in South Dakota
South Dakota voids a contract restraining a lawful profession or business except where SDCL §§ 53-9-9 through 53-9-12 permit it.
SDCL 53-9-11 is the permitting statute for a veterinarian's employee non-compete: it caps the restriction, and any customer non-solicitation clause, at two years from termination and to a specified county, municipality, or other area where the employer keeps operating.
A separate 2023 statute makes some non-competes voidable for a 28-profession "practitioner" list — veterinarians are not on it.
The governing text was last amended in 2023.
Mechanics, not a verdict on your contract
At a glance
Permitted only within statutory limits
State statute — SDCL 53-9-8 (contracts in restraint of trade void, with statutory exceptions) and SDCL 53-9-11 (the employee non-compete exception).
Healthcare statute reaches veterinarians: No — the healthcare statute's own definitions leave veterinarians out.
SDCL 53-9-8 voids any contract restraining a lawful profession, trade, or business except as SDCL §§ 53-9-9 through 53-9-12 allow; SDCL 53-9-11 is the exception that lets an employee agree not to engage in the same business or profession as the employer, and not to solicit the employer's existing customers, for up to two years after termination.
No. SDCL 53-9-11.1 defines "practitioner," for the separate voidability rule in SDCL 53-9-11.2, as a list of exactly 28 licensed professions — physicians, nurses, dentists, physical therapists and more. Veterinarians, licensed under SDCL Title 36, Chapter 36-12, are not on that list, so SDCL 53-9-11.2's voidability rule does not reach them.
No wage or pay threshold. Instead, SDCL 53-9-11 caps the restriction itself: at most two years from termination, confined to a specified county, first- or second-class municipality, or other specified area, and only while the employer continues to carry on a like business there.
Two years maximum for both the competition restriction and the customer non-solicitation restriction; geographically limited to a specified county, first- or second-class municipality, or other specified area where the employer keeps operating a like business.
Not stated in the sources read.
Not stated in the sources read for a veterinarian's own covenant. SDCL 53-9-11.2(1) exempts a contract provision "effective upon the sale of a practice or interest in a practice" from its practitioner-voidability rule, but that rule itself only reaches the 28 professions SDCL 53-9-11.1 lists, which does not include veterinarians.
Governed by the same SDCL 53-9-11 sentence as the competition restriction: up to two years, confined to a specified county, municipality, or other specified area, and only while the employer continues a like business there. SDCL 53-9-11.2's separate solicitation definition applies only to the practitioner and community-services-provider list, not to veterinarians.
SDCL 53-9-11 last amended 2023 (SL 2023, ch 160, § 1); SDCL 53-9-11.2 enacted 2023 and expanded in 2026 (SL 2026, ch 196, § 1) with a community-services-provider carve-out effective July 1, 2026 — neither 2026 change added veterinarians.
What South Dakota’s text actually says
“an employee may agree with an employer at the time of employment or at any time during employment not to engage directly or indirectly in the same business or profession as that of the employer for any period not exceeding two years from the date of termination of the agreement and not to solicit existing customers of the employer within a specified county, first- or second-class municipality, or other specified area for any period not exceeding two years from the date of termination of the agreement, if the employer continues to carry on a like business therein.”
The void-with-exceptions framework and the employee non-compete exception
SDCL 53-9-8 starts from a default of voiding any contract that restrains a lawful profession, trade, or business, then carves out SDCL §§ 53-9-9 through 53-9-12 as exceptions.
SDCL 53-9-11 is the exception that reaches an ordinary employee non-compete: an employee may agree, at hiring or at any point during employment, not to engage directly or indirectly in the same business or profession as the employer, and not to solicit the employer's existing customers, for up to two years after the agreement ends.
For an associate veterinarian, that means the agreement is enforceable only within those two statutory limits — duration and the employer's continued operation of a like business in the specified area — not on whatever terms the contract itself states.
“Any contract restraining exercise of a lawful profession, trade, or business is void to that extent, except as provided by §§ 53-9-9 to 53-9-12”
Why South Dakota's practitioner-voidability statute does not cover veterinarians
SDCL 53-9-11.2 makes a contract provision voidable, for agreements entered on or after July 1, 2023, if it restricts a "practitioner" from practicing after the job ends.
SDCL 53-9-11.1 defines that term by listing exactly 28 licensed professions — physicians, physician assistants, EMTs, chiropractors, dentists, nurse types, physical therapists, pharmacists, social workers, psychologists, counselors, and more, each tied to its own SDCL Title 36 chapter.
Veterinarians are licensed under a different chapter of Title 36, Chapter 36-12, which SDCL 53-9-11.1 does not name.
A veterinarian's non-compete therefore stays under the general two-year rule in SDCL 53-9-11, not the practitioner-voidability rule.
“from practicing or otherwise providing professional services in accordance with the applicable scope of practice, after the conclusion of the practitioner's employment or after the dissolution of a partnership or other form of professional relationship.”
The statutory caps that apply in place of a wage threshold
South Dakota's employee non-compete statute has no income or pay threshold of any kind — the same two-year rule applies whatever a veterinarian earns.
What it caps instead is the restriction's own scope: duration cannot exceed two years from termination, and geography is limited to a specified county, first- or second-class municipality, or other specified area.
Those geographic limits only bind if the employer continues carrying on a like business in that area; the statute ties the restriction's life to the employer's own continued presence there.
“not to engage directly or indirectly in the same business or profession as that of the employer for any period not exceeding two years from the date of termination of the agreement”
Why the sale-of-practice carve-out in § 53-9-11.2 does not answer this for a veterinarian
SDCL 53-9-11.2(1) exempts a contract provision that is "effective upon the sale of a practice or interest in a practice" from that section's own voidability rule.
That exemption only matters within the practitioner-voidability rule described above — and that rule does not reach veterinarians at all, so the exemption tells us how the legislature treats a sale-related covenant for the 28 listed professions, not how South Dakota treats one for a veterinarian buying into or selling out of a practice.
The sources read for this page do not separately address that question under the general SDCL 53-9-11 rule.
“This section does not apply to any contractual provision that: (1)Is effective upon the sale of a practice or interest in a practice”
Customer non-solicitation is the second half of the same sentence
The same sentence that permits a competition restriction also permits a customer non-solicitation clause: an employee may agree not to solicit the employer's existing customers within a specified county, first- or second-class municipality, or other specified area, for up to two years after termination, again conditioned on the employer continuing a like business there.
For an associate veterinarian, that means a client-facing non-solicitation clause carries the same two-year cap and the same geographic and continued-operation conditions as the competition restriction, rather than a separate, more permissive standard.
SDCL 53-9-11.2's own solicitation definition is written for the practitioner and community-services-provider list, so it does not govern a veterinarian's non-solicitation clause.
What changed in 2021, 2023 and 2026, and what did not
SL 2023, ch 160 amended SDCL 53-9-11 and SDCL 53-9-11.1 (the practitioner definition, first enacted in 2021 by SL 2021, ch 205) and enacted SDCL 53-9-11.2, the practitioner-voidability rule, effective for contracts entered on or after July 1, 2023.
SL 2026, ch 196 then expanded SDCL 53-9-11.2 to add a parallel voidability rule for "community services providers" who work with individuals with developmental disabilities, for contracts entered on or after July 1, 2026.
Neither change added veterinarians to the protected list.
SDCL 53-9-11, the two-year rule that governs a veterinarian's covenant, was also amended in 2021 (SL 2021, ch 205); the sources read do not say which of the 2021 or 2023 amendments added its "Except as otherwise provided in § 53-9-11.2" qualifier.
What this page does not answer for South Dakota
The South Dakota row read for this page covers the void-with-exceptions framework, the two-year employee non-compete and non-solicitation rule, and the practitioner-voidability statute that excludes veterinarians.
It does not cover how a South Dakota court modifies or narrows a covenant it finds overbroad, or how a covenant tied to the sale of a veterinary practice or an ownership buy-in or buy-out is treated outside the practitioner-voidability rule.
Those gaps matter most at a practice sale or partnership transition, where a restrictive covenant is often drafted alongside the purchase terms.
They are left blank here rather than filled from another state's rule — take them to a South Dakota 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 South Dakota.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does South Dakota's 2023 practitioner-voidability law protect veterinarians?
No. SDCL 53-9-11.2 makes some non-competes voidable for a "practitioner" as SDCL 53-9-11.1 defines that term — a list of exactly 28 licensed professions, including physicians, nurses, dentists, and physical therapists.
Veterinarians are licensed under a different chapter, SDCL Title 36, Chapter 36-12, which that list does not name.
A veterinarian's covenant stays under the general two-year rule in SDCL 53-9-11.
Have a South Dakota attorney who handles veterinary employment contracts confirm how that rule applies to your agreement.
How long can a South Dakota veterinarian's non-compete last, and where can it apply?
SDCL 53-9-11 caps both the competition restriction and any customer non-solicitation clause at two years from the date the agreement ends.
Geographically, the restriction is limited to a specified county, first- or second-class municipality, or other specified area, and it only holds if the employer continues carrying on a like business there.
There is no separate wage threshold.
A South Dakota employment attorney can review how these caps apply to the specific terms in your contract.
Does selling my share of a South Dakota veterinary practice change how a non-compete is treated?
The sources read for this page do not directly answer that question under the general SDCL 53-9-11 rule that governs a veterinarian's covenant.
SDCL 53-9-11.2(1) does exempt sale-of-practice provisions from its own voidability rule, but that rule only reaches the 28 listed practitioner professions, not veterinarians, so the exemption does not resolve how a veterinarian's sale-related covenant is treated.
Have a South Dakota attorney who handles veterinary practice transactions review the covenant and the purchase agreement together before you sign.
Is a client non-solicitation clause treated differently from a competition restriction in South Dakota?
Not under SDCL 53-9-11 — the same sentence permits both, with the same two-year cap, the same geographic limits to a specified county, municipality, or other specified area, and the same condition that the employer keep operating a like business there.
SDCL 53-9-11.2 defines "soliciting" separately, but only for the practitioner and community-services-provider list, which does not include veterinarians.
A South Dakota attorney can walk through how a specific non-solicitation clause in your agreement compares to the statute's terms.
When did South Dakota's non-compete law for veterinarians last change?
SDCL 53-9-11, the statute governing a veterinarian's non-compete, was last amended in 2023 (SL 2023, ch 160, § 1).
That same 2023 law also created the separate practitioner-voidability rule in SDCL 53-9-11.2, which a 2026 amendment expanded to cover community services providers — neither change reaches veterinarians.
This page was last verified in September 2026; confirm the current text and ask a South Dakota attorney before relying on it, since this area moves by both legislation and case law.
More South Dakota Non-Compete Resources
Sources
- SDCL 53-9-8 — South Dakota Legislature (official codified laws site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- SDCL 53-9-11 — South Dakota Legislature (official codified laws site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- SDCL 53-9-11.1 — South Dakota Legislature (official codified laws site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
- SDCL 53-9-11.2 — South Dakota Legislature (official codified laws site) (retrieved 2026-09-16)
Sourced from South Dakota’s own statute or leading court decisions (see the citations above). Verified September 2026; the governing provision was last amended SDCL 53-9-11 last amended 2023 (SL 2023, ch 160, § 1); SDCL 53-9-11.2 enacted 2023 and expanded in 2026 (SL 2026, ch 196, § 1) with a community-services-provider carve-out effective July 1, 2026 — neither 2026 change added veterinarians. This page is general information, not legal advice.