Contract trap · Vendor and freelance
Non-solicit / conversion fee
You may not work with the client's customers, staff or partners for 12-24 months after the contract, may not be hired by the end-client 'in circumvention' of the agency or platform, and a fixed 'conversion' or 'placement' fee (a % of annual pay) is owed if it happens.
- Severity
- Expensive
- How often it turns up
- Common
- Holds up?
- Depends where you are
- Clause phrases
- 19
What it looks like in a contract
Redline matches these phrases against your document verbatim. Drafters rarely invent new wording — they copy it, which is why the same sentences turn up across unrelated contracts.
In English-language contracts
- shall not solicit
- shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit, hire or engage
- any employee, contractor or customer
- non-circumvention
- conversion fee
- placement fee
- equal to __% of annual compensation
- for a period of twelve (12) months following
- no-hire
- introduced through the Platform
In Russian-language contracts
- не привлекать сотрудников Заказчика
- не переманивать работников
- не заключать договоры с клиентами Заказчика напрямую
- в обход Агентства
- штраф в размере 12 окладов
- запрет на прямое сотрудничество
- не вступать в договорные отношения с контрагентами Заказчика
- в течение 24 месяцев после прекращения
- плата за переход специалиста
Check your own contract
Paste a clause, a page or the whole document. Nothing leaves your browser: the matching runs here, on this page, against the phrases above.
Why it bites
For subcontractors and platform freelancers this removes your best future clients — the ones you just met through the work — and the fixed fee is usually enforced (Freelancer.com: up to 30% of annualised pay and/or USD 3,000 per infraction); no-hire agreements between companies can be criminal antitrust conduct.
Is it enforceable where you are
The same clause can be routine in one country and void in another. What follows is what the law says where you are — not advice on your particular contract.
B2B terms get much less protection: in the UK, UCTA 1977 s.3 tests standard terms for reasonableness; in the EU, the Late Payment Directive 2011/7 caps payment terms and P2B Regulation 2019/1150 applies to platforms.
United States
Customer/employee non-solicits usually enforceable if reasonable; California voids employee non-solicits (AMN Healthcare v. Aya, 2018) and most customer non-solicits (Edwards v. Arthur Andersen, 2008); platform conversion fees enforced as contract; naked no-poach agreements per se illegal and prosecuted criminally by DOJ, clauses ancillary to a genuine service contract generally lawful.
- Cited
- AMN Healthcare v. Aya
- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen
European Union
Enforceable within limits: Germany allows Kundenschutz/Abwerbeverbot clauses up to ~2 years if tied to a legitimate interest; no-poach agreements between companies are cartel conduct under Art 101 TFEU (Commission enforcement since 2024).
- Cited
- Art 101 TFEU
United Kingdom
Non-solicits enforced more readily than non-competes if limited to contacts within the last 6-12 months (Tillman; Coppage v Safety Net); CMA guidance (2023) treats no-poach and wage-fixing between employers as Chapter I infringements; recruiter introduction fees enforceable.
- Cited
- CMA
- Coppage v Safety Net
Russia
Для работников неприменимо (ст. 37 Конституции, ст. 9 ТК); между ИП/юрлицами суды нередко взыскивают штраф за «переманивание» как договорную неустойку, снижая по ст. 333; ФАС рассматривает соглашения работодателей «не нанимать» как потенциальный картель (ст. 11 135-ФЗ); запрет работать с клиентами заказчика напрямую — сфера ст. 421, оспаривается по ст. 22 ГК.
- Cited
- 135-ФЗ
- ст. 11
- ст. 22 ГК
- ст. 333
- ст. 37
- ст. 421
- ст. 9 ТК
Where this has actually happened
Regulator actions, court rulings and the contracts they were fought over.
- Freelancer.com User Agreement — 24-month non-circumvention; fee up to 30% of projected annualised compensation and/or USD 3,000 per infraction
- Upwork Terms of Service 'Opt-Out' — 24-month non-circumvention with conversion fee
- AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Services (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) — employee non-solicit void
What to do
In order, from the thing that takes a minute to the thing that takes a letter.
- Limit to clients you were actually introduced to under this contract and did not already know
- Cap at 6-12 months
- Carve out unsolicited approaches and public job ads
- Delete fixed placement fees or set them at a realistic recruiter rate
- On platforms, read the opt-out rules and decide whether paying the fee beats waiting out the period.
Traps that travel with it
Drafters who use one of these usually use several.