Attorney General liaisons walk board through disciplinary process, standards and role of disciplinary guidelines

Deputy Attorneys General Christina Jarvis and Nicole Trauma briefed the California Board of Pharmacy on Feb. 6 on the Attorney General’s role in prosecuting disciplinary matters, the accusation process, and how the board uses disciplinary guidelines and proposed decisions.

Key elements of the presentation - Intake and accusation: DOJ liaisons described how they review investigative referrals, determine whether the evidence supports specific causes for discipline, and draft and serve a formal accusation. The accusation must give the respondent sufficient notice of the charges and the jurisdictional basis for them. - Notice of defense, defaults and hearings: The presenters reviewed timelines for a respondent to file a notice of defense (or risk default), the meet‑and‑confer requirement for setting hearings, and how discovery and settlement negotiations proceed before trial preparation and hearing. - Burden of proof and license categories: The AG liaisons explained that professional licenses (for example pharmacist and pharmacist‑intern licenses) require clear and convincing evidence; occupational and premises licenses (including many premises/wholesale licenses) are judged by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Pharmacy technicians were discussed as an occupational license recently held to a preponderance of the evidence standard. - Disciplinary guidelines and sanctions: The presentation summarized the Board’s disciplinary guidelines (Categories 1–4) and the board’s options, from public reproval to revocation, and the rationale for minimum and maximum penalties. Presenters emphasized that guidelines are guidance; the board may deviate from the suggested minimum or maximum where mitigation, evidentiary or other factors warrant.

Why it matters The AG liaisons emphasized due process: accurate, well‑supported accusations, full opportunity for response, and consistent sanctions that both protect the public and treat like cases similarly. They discussed how proposed decisions flow from Administrative Law Judges to the board, and how the board’s expert review provides an additional layer of experience and consistency.

Questions and board discussion Board members asked how public reprovals fit into the disciplinary categories and whether the board can accept settlements that fall below guideline minima; the AG team said settlements and probations can be tailored where mitigation and facts warrant and that reproval remains an option for appropriate minor violations.

Ending The board thanked the liaisons and asked staff and members to continue to ensure the disciplinary process balances due process and public protection. No action was taken; the presentation was informational.