Understanding Your Rights as a Licensee Facing Discipline

New clients sometimes call the firm to ask " what are my rights?" in a license discipline or license denial case.  The answer to this question goes to the heart of the complexities of representing clients in professional licensing cases. 

When I see that a client is struggling with the concept of their constitutional protections, I usually ask them to envision a continuum (like a time line), with criminal cases at one end and at the other end licensing cases, and in the middle civil cases for money damages.  The criminal end symbolizes the greatest constitutional protections, the licensing or administrative end represents the fewest protections.  I then talk about three major case types in exemplifying the rights involved in each.

Starting with the greatest protections, a criminal defendant enjoys the strongest rights because their liberty is at stake.  A criminal defendant has the absolute right of presumed innocence, and can only be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous vote of twelve unbiased peers.  The criminal defendant can remain silent throughout the trial.  The defendant is guaranteed an effective defense, which for someone indigent can mean a free lawyer and even a free investigator.  These are some of the rights involved.

In a civil case, typically a defendant must be found liable by a preponderance of the evidence (basically, more than 50 percent).  A defendant is entitled to a jury of his peers, but a unanimous decision is not required.  Numerous procedures, including discovery (exchanging information through asking for documents and answers to questions,  and taking depositions) and summary judgment motions (to get a case that lacks merit dismissed) are available to the defendant.

In a licensing case, there is no jury.  The neutral judge who hears the case only makes a proposed decision, which then goes to the licensing agency for adoption, non-adoption or modification.  In other words, the licensing agency board or agency head (without a board) makes the final decision.  The licensee has no right to remain silent, meaning they must testify at their trial.  There is nothing to prevent an agency from bringing even a meritless case against the licensee and to press the matter to hearing.  And, in most cases, a licensee can be made to pay reimbursement to the licensing agency for its attorneys fees and investigation costs.

The rights, or lack of rights, of a licensee in a disciplinary hearing, is often shocking to hear the first time.  However, there are reasons why licensees have fewer rights.  First, a professional license is a privilege, not a right.  Second, the protection of the public against incompetent, impaired or dishonest licensees is paramount for a licensing agency.  And third, a licensee issued by a licensing agency is neither a fundamental freedom nor the personal property of the licensee.  It is a grant of permission predicated upon education, experience, exams, payment of fees, and meeting qualifications.

The striking difference in rights between criminal, civil and licensing matters may lead one to ask, can a license discipline case be fought and won? The answer is yes.  Despite the relatively few rights that a licensee has, a skilled attorney can contain the damage from a license discipline action and even win cases.  The key is understanding that the administrative discipline process is a system which is somewhat predictable.  A licensing attorney must usually work with, and sometimes within the system, to avoid loss of license or severe discipline.  Finally, the client must be willing to take steps, sometimes extraordinary steps, to reassure their licensing agency that they are safe and competent to work in their profession.

Should You Cooperate with the Board Investigator?

One of our most frequent issues at the firm is clients calling who have become the subject of a California licensing board investigation.  Investigations are handled primarily two ways, either by an enforcement analyst or technician inside a licensing agency's offices, or in the field by outside investigators who work for either the board itself (such as the Medical and Dental Boards) or the Department of Consumer Affairs (all other boards). 

If an investigation can be completed from the desk of a board employee in Sacramento, the questioning of a licensee usually consists of a letter asking for a written response.  Such investigations can broadly be placed into two categories: requests for documents and information concerning a criminal conviction or discipline against another license held by the licensee, or, minor investigations which might be closed with the receipt of a satisfactory written response.  A licensee should have all such written communications reviewed by an attorney.  A response concerning a consumer complaint should be consistent with the complete case file.  A reply to a board concerning a criminal conviction or other license discipline must be consistent with the available records concerning the incident and penalty.  Inconsistent statements may be interpreted as dishonesty.  Also, be cautious, there is always the possibility that a rather benign inquiry from a licensing agency may be a prelude to an in-depth investigation.

A much more complicated question is the extent to which a licensee should cooperate with an investigator in the field (such as a Medical Board Investigator or a Department of Consumer Affairs Investigator) who is investigating allegations of wrongdoing against that licensee.  We generally follow these principles when clients face investigation: First, do not sign a release for your personal records, particularly medical records, except upon the advice of an attorney.  Preservation of confidentiality is paramount.  Would you freely seek medical or psychiatric treatment if you knew that a stranger, possibly seeking to damage your livelihood, would one day pour through your personal records? The decision to sign a release must be very carefully made. Second, never submit to drug testing at an interview.  The taking of one's body fluids is a similar invasion of privacy, and body fluids can be tested in a variety of ways.  Third, all communications with an investigator must be through a lawyer or with a lawyer present.  Only the presence of a lawyer at an interview can ensure that  the interview is accurately reported on later, the investigator will not act improperly, and can ensure that the licensee can decline to answer questions or to leave when he or she wants without pressure or intimidation.  Fourth, we counsel against signed statements - investigators sometimes prepare statements for a quick signature by the licensee, which may contain in them very harmful admissions. 

Having cautioned clients about the many possible traps in a board field investigation, we still counsel that the client should be cooperative,  Examining the difference between a police investigation and a licensing agency investigation is instructive to explain why. The difference between an investigation by a board investigator concerning possible board discipline and a police investigator in a criminal investigation is that a state licensing agency has much broader powers to punish, using a much lower standard of proof, than the police investigator can through the D.A. and the courts.  Therefore, while a citizen who exercises his rights against self incrimination may shield himself from prosecution successfully, a licensee will rarely if ever deter a licensing agency from seeking and imposing discipline through non-cooperation if the licensing agency believes its licensee is incompetent, impaired or has committed serious misconduct.  Licensing agency investigations arise from concerns for public safety.  Therefore, the licensee should look at the investigation as an opportunity to reassure the licensing agency that the licensee is competent and safe to practice.  Finally, above all, be honest.  Betraying the trust of the licensing agency can be seen as worse than the conduct that triggered the investigation in the first place.