We have successfully represented clients before ethics committees of associations and private boards.  While associations and private boards lack the power to discipline professional and occupational licenses, adverse ethics findings can seriously damage a reputation and a career, and, in some cases, lead later to license discipline.  Private entities typically have by-laws and procedures to safeguard member rights, but may not follow their own rules unless demanded to do so by our experienced administrative attorneys.

In one case, a client was accused by an industry association of unethical behavior and was threatened with having that behavior reported to the client’s employer.  After our intervention and advocacy, the association board reconsidered its position and dropped its plan to contact the employer.  Also, many of the earlier findings of misconduct were either reversed or softened, significantly limiting the damage.

In another case, a national healthcare professional association brought a complaint against a practitioner based upon allegations from the mother of a patient.  Senior Associate Attorney Lindsay Johnson developed a robust defense and rebutted the allegations.  After reviewing our response, the association dismissed the ethics allegations and thanked our attorney for the professional response.

The Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers brought a petition to revoke probation against a Ray & Bishop client who was on probation.  Having given the real estate appraiser a chance already by placing him on probation, when BREA believed that the appraiser had made mistakes on three appraisals and had failed to disclose other license discipline they were in no mood to give another second chance.  The Bureau demanded license revocation.

After a two-day hearing, the administrative law judge agreed with Ray & Bishop Senior Associate Attorney Lindsay Johnson that 75% of the case was unproven and threw three quarters of the case out.  The judge also slashed the cost bill BREA asked be paid, trimming over $20,000 in costs down to a little over $5,000.  As a penalty for what BREA could prove, probation was extended, and the license was saved.

The Medical Board of California brought an accusation against our doctor client for a 0.11% blood alcohol level drunk driving conviction.  The Medical Board cited the fact that the physician admitted to the police officer that he was on call in demanding harsh punishment.  In settlement negotiations, the Board’s minimum offer was a five year probation that would have been devastating to the physician’s career.

At hearing the judge agreed with attorney Fred Ray that the facts did not warrant probation.  The physician was driving home after having wine at a family gathering on a Saturday night, other physicians were available to take the hospital calls, and alcoholism and alcohol abuse were ruled out by an expert brought in by the firm.  The judge agreed that probation was an unduly harsh and unnecessary punishment for the physician in light of all the evidence and argument at hearing.    A panel of the Medical Board heard arguments after non-adoption of the hearing decision and agreed with our position, giving the physician only a public reprimand with no further penalties.

A client of Ray and Bishop was denied a teaching credential due to criminal convictions related to academic dishonesty and theft that happened while he was in college.   We disagreed with the Committee’s recommendation because the convictions were over eight years old and no longer relevant to the person the applicant had become.  We therefore demanded a hearing before an administrative law judge.  The CTC refused to offer settlement, so the matter had to go to hearing.

At the administrative hearing, the administrative law judge agreed with our arguments that the applicant had shown rehabilitation and good character.  The administrative law judge therefore proposed that the teacher applicant be granted a clear credential.  The California Commissioner on Teacher Credentialing reviewed the decision and voted to adopt the proposed decision, granting the teacher a clear teaching credential.

In 2017, Ray & Bishop won stay orders in three Superior Court cases, stopping license revocations while our we fought appeals in Superior Court.  Two stays were granted in Board of Registered Nursing cases, permitting the nurses to work with clear licenses while we fought their appeals.  A third stay was granted in a Bureau of Real Estate case, enabling the broker to transact real estate with a clear license while we fought on in court.  The appeal process is a petition for writ of administrative mandamus.  A writ of administrative mandamus, or administrative mandate, can result in an agency decision being overturned.  The Superior Court can order the administrative agency, such as the Board of Registered Nursing, to reverse its decision and not revoke a license.

In most cases a Superior Court judge will only grant a stay order if the judge is convinced that the licensee will prevail on the merits of the appeal.  In other words, a stay order can be a strong early indication that the licensee will win on appeal.  Stay orders can be very difficult to win, because in almost all cases the Attorney General vigorously fights against a stay order being granted.  In all appeal proceedings, all state agencies are represented by the Attorney General from the California Department of Justice.  Petitions for writs of administrative mandamus are typically brought in Sacramento County Superior Court.

A licensed vocational nurse applicant was denied a license by the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians after the applicant disclosed that he had another healthcare license that had been disciplined in the past. In the prior disciplinary case, the LVN license applicant had been placed on three years of probation for negligence, making incorrect entries on a patient record, a dishonest act and unprofessional conduct. The Board took the position that the new LVN license should also be put on probation just as the prior healthcare license had been.

We took the position that the outcome offered by the Board in settlement and advanced at hearing was unreasonable and would be extremely unfair to the license applicant. The applicant had successfully completed the prior probation, was appropriately remorseful, and had a serious and respectful demeanor at the proceeding.  After our presentation of all of the carefully prepared mitigation and rehabilitation evidence and legal arguments, the Administrative Law Judge granted a clear, unrestricted license, which was adopted by the Board. This result demonstrates the principle that the right law firm, which is not afraid to go to trial and push for a better result, can achieve a superior outcome.  This client was represented by Matthew Truong, Associate Attorney at Ray & Bishop, PLC.

A Board of Registered Nursing case against an RN who was accused of discrepancies in the handling of controlled substances was resolved by negotiation for an order of public reproval, also known as a public reprimand.  A public reproval involves no probation conditions and will drop off of the RN’s license record after three years.  The RN was not required to admit to the truth of the allegations in the accusation.

The Board initially accused the nurse of unprofessional conduct due to incorrect medication entries, as well as gross negligence for the mishandling of controlled substances.  The Board sought to place the RN on probation.  However, through advocacy with the Board and effectively explaining all of the circumstances surrounding the events, we persuaded the Board to drop its insistence on probation and settle for a public reproval.

Cases involving controlled substance errors and Pyxis machine data errors are very difficult to litigate because the reporting party (usually a hospital) may strongly suspect and infer drug diversion, including theft or abuse of drugs.  However, wasting, dosage and documentation errors can and do occur and can be explained and put into context by an effective attorney.  Ray & Bishop, PLC, represents and defends nurses in these types of very difficult cases that can have a severe impact on the careers of nurses.


Our newest associate, Mr. Matthew Truong, recently assisted a client with disclosure of a felony conviction to the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians.  The client plead guilty to felony vandalism and misdemeanor battery in late 2016.  Two months later, Mr. Truong helped the client gather mitigation and rehabilitation evidence to present to the Board as part of the client’s responsibility to disclose the criminal convictions to the Board.

Although the client served jail time and was required to report to a probation officer, the LVN Board elected not to pursue disciplinary action against the client.  Mr. Truong’s counsel and presentation to the Board was instrumental in keeping the client free from any professional consequences, and the client remains employed.

Our firm just received a decision from the fourth consecutive disciplinary case against a physician by the Medical Board of California.  The physician was already on probation, and in two prior cases, the physician’s probation had been extended.  The Board accused the physician of misconduct while on probation, and forced the physician to make statements because he was on probation.  Since the standard of proof is much lower to discipline someone on probation – probation can be violated on a showing of only a preponderance of the evidence – the Medical Board of California filed a petition to revoke probation in addition to an accusation.

However, fortunately for the physician, an administrative law judge agreed with our arguments that the Medical Board of California did not meet its burden of proof and dismissed the disciplinary case.   The physician’s license was saved.

This case result does not constitute a guaranty, warranty or prediction of the outcome of any other license discipline case.  Every case is unique.  For more information about how we can fight to save your license, call Ray & Bishop, PLC at 949-557-4888, or find more information at www.calicenselaw.com.  Legal advertisement.

Senior Associate Ms. Lindsay Johnson recently represented a prospective insurance agent who had been summarily denied a license because of a felony conviction for assault.  As we have discussed on the blog before, a “summary denial” is a denial that precludes the applicant from even having an administrative hearing on the issue of fitness for licensure.  The answer from the Department was a flat “no” with no recourse.

Except, through Ms. Johnson’s diligent work, we filed a petition for reconsideration with the Department of Insurance, and the summary denial was set aside.  The matter was ordered to be heard at an administrative proceeding.  However, through negotiation and the presentation of quality evidence, our client was granted a restricted license without the need for hearing.

As with all our fine results, we have to make clear that no individual case outcome can help predict what will happen in your case.  Every case is different, and this summary of excellent work does not constitute a warranty or a prediction of your case.  If you have a problem with the Department of Insurance of any kind, you should seek qualified, experienced counsel.  Legal advertisement.