Build a budgeting worksheet for non-compete drafting, review, negotiation, and consideration costs across one or many agreements.
Non-compete agreements can trigger several different cost buckets: drafting, review of the governing rule set, negotiation, and the consideration offered to the person signing the restriction. If a business is rolling out multiple agreements, those costs often need to be multiplied across a team rather than estimated one document at a time.
This calculator is a budgeting worksheet for that planning work. It lets you scale attorney drafting cost by geographic scope, adjust the review line for lower or higher rule-set complexity, and combine the legal fees with consideration on a per-agreement and portfolio basis.
The worksheet does not determine whether a restriction is enforceable in a particular jurisdiction or fact pattern. It is meant to help you organize budgeting assumptions before you get specific legal advice.
Use this page to total the legal drafting, review, negotiation, and consideration costs tied to a non-compete rollout or a single negotiated agreement.
Per-Agreement Worksheet Cost = Adjusted Drafting Fee + Adjusted Review Fee + Negotiation Cost + Consideration Total Portfolio Cost = Per-Agreement Worksheet Cost × Number of Agreements
Result: $6,750 total agreement cost
Attorney drafting at $1,200, review at $300, consideration of $5,000, and $250 for negotiation produce a per-agreement worksheet cost of $6,750 under the moderate review assumption.
The calculator combines the cost of drafting, rule-set review, negotiation, and consideration into one worksheet. It also shows how geographic scope changes the drafting line item and how multiple agreements scale the total budget.
Non-compete cost depends on facts that are hard to standardize in a universal calculator: employee seniority, territorial scope, how customized the language needs to be, the volume of agreements, and the amount of consideration the business plans to offer. A budgeting worksheet is safer than pretending there is one built-in legal price or enforceability score.
Use the output to compare scenarios, prepare an internal budget, or structure a discussion with counsel. The worksheet should not be used as a legal conclusion about whether a restriction is valid, advisable, or likely to survive challenge in a particular jurisdiction.
Last updated:
This worksheet adds drafting, review, negotiation, and consideration assumptions into a per-agreement cost, then scales the result across multiple agreements if needed. It is a budgeting tool for rollout planning and does not decide enforceability, reasonableness, or the right legal structure for a particular employment relationship.
The total depends on the drafting fee, the amount of rule-specific review required, negotiation time, the value of consideration, and the number of agreements in scope. This worksheet is built to combine those line items instead of assuming one universal price.
No. It is a budgeting worksheet, not an enforceability opinion. Actual enforceability depends on the governing rule set, contract language, facts, and current legal advice.
Consideration is the value given in exchange for the restriction, such as compensation, a bonus, equity, or another business benefit. The worksheet treats it as a separate cost so it is not buried inside legal fees.
Some rule sets require more tailoring, narrower drafting, or more review time than others. The review-complexity selector scales the review line item to reflect that extra work without pretending to score enforceability.
Yes. Treat the non-compete worksheet as one scenario, then compare it with separate budgets for non-solicitation, confidentiality, or narrower employment restrictions if those are under consideration.
No. This page is best used for drafting and rollout budgeting. If you want to model dispute or litigation cost, keep that as a separate worksheet so the initial agreement cost stays distinct from later enforcement spending.