A unique drama plays out almost daily in the niche practice of licensing law in which the legal territory is appealing denials of State professional and occupational licenses and defending against license revocation or other discipline against the license by State licensing authorities. That drama turns not on the typical issue of who the potential client will select to defend his interests, but, instead, should the at-risk client burden him/herself further with the costs of retaining any counsel to obtain or defend an occupational license? There are some specific and particular reasons why licensing practice is so afflicted with this issue. Typically, by the time the licensing attorney first meets the potential client, the client has engaged in multiple substantial interactions with representatives of the State's licensing department or agency. And in all of these previous encounters, the State's representative will have repeatedly suggested to the applicant or licensee that they "can" utilize an attorney – or not. Even the forms by which the licensing authorities give official notice of the procedural rights of the licensee or applicant make clear that representation by an attorney is strictly optional. Clients consistently report that State licensing authorities confide in preliminary or incidental remarks that "most" persons with licensing disputes do not bother to obtain legal representation. The chronic and purposeful efforts of the licensing agencies to discourage licensees and applicants from retaining counsel is an unseemly practice which, while perhaps not per se illegal, discredits and distorts the agencies' reason for being. Why has the State adopted – in consistent practice if not by overt written standards — any interest in or preference for the lack of legal representation for regular lay-persons' participation in adversarial processes. These adversarial processes are formal evidentiary proceedings in which applicants' and licensees' abilities to earn their livings hang in the balance? How is such practice consistent with the licensing agencies' stated and publicly-funded mission of protecting the public from incompetence and dishonesty in these regulated services? The State's dubious "advice" is provided to a vast range of licensees and license applicants working (or intending to work) in more than 800 occupations. Some of these occupational groups, such as barbers, vehicle salespersons, and nail technicians, are comprised of relatively unschooled and unsophisticated individuals. Others, such as accountants, veterinarians, doctors, and dentists, are typically highly educated, sophisticated and well-compensated. But none of them understand the hearsay rule, or its unique role in administrative proceedings. And all of them believe that the Fifth Amendment protects them in the licensing hearing. None of them knows that the result of the adversarial hearing is a proposed decision – a decision which the licensing agency is free to reject if the agency disagrees with the Administrative Law Judge's view of the evidence and the applicable law. All of them think that their hearing will be decided on the basis of the equities of their situation rather than the mechanical application of statutes and agency rules. And, not surprisingly, these misdirected pro pers' cases typically result in a proposed decision upholding the agency's decision to deny or discipline the license. By overwhelming raw numbers and percentages, the unrepresented lose the evidentiary battle for a favorable proposed decision. The ugly truth is that not one of the licensees and applicants subjected to the State's assurances about the lack of need for a lawyer is benefitted or served by the State's encouragement to defend themselves in the fair hearing process. If the State has the requisite evidence to serve the public interest by denying an occupational license application, or revoking an existing license, how is that legitimate and vital State purpose furthered by attempting to cause the affected applicant or licensee to forego the advice and guidance of counsel? Perhaps the invidious quality of the State licensing agencies' unwritten but chronic practice to encourage pro per appearances in the administrative process would be less offensive if these practiced inducements to forego the aid of counsel were not undeniably and overwhelmingly successful. Day after day and year after year, the daily calendars at every Office of Administrative Hearings location show that more than 80% of the license applicants and licensees whose livelihoods hang in the balance are pro per. They wouldn't have gone pro per in defense of a misdemeanor for which they could reasonably expect a fine of about a thousand dollars. Concerns about the burdens of a permanent criminal record would have disposed of any ambivalence. But, with the State agencies' not-so-subtle prodding, hundreds of people a year go pro per in a formal, reported, adversarial proceeding: a proceeding in which the opposing interests are represented by Deputy Attorneys General; a proceeding in which expensive educations and years of internships and employment experience may be made null by barring the occupational door; a proceeding in which the means of making a living – perhaps the only such means available or practical– will be declared off-limits. Why does the State of California engage in this effort to stack the deck against its occupational license applicants and licensees? Isn't it time – past time – for the consumer protection arm of the State government to abstain from this manipulative and gratuitous practice?
Read more detail on Recent Administrative Law Posts –Legal notice about the DEFENDING PROFESSIONAL and OCCUPATIONAL STATE LICENSES: State-wide Practice of California Licensing Agencies Doesn't Pass the Smell Test rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to DEFENDING PROFESSIONAL and OCCUPATIONAL STATE LICENSES: State-wide Practice of California Licensing Agencies Doesn't Pass the Smell Test?