Case library / What happens after discipline
The Board asked for $10,778. The judge ordered $4,000.
In short
Probation reinstated for three years. Costs reduced from $10,778 to $4,000
$4,000How §125.3 cost recovery actually gets decided.
The Board asked for $10,778 and the judge ordered $4,000. Cost recovery is contestable, and it is the part respondents most often concede without argument.
What happened
On a petition to revoke probation, the Board sought $10,778 in costs — the largest cost-recovery request in a probation matter in this dataset.
The final order set the amount at $4,000 and reinstated probation for three years.
What it was charged as
Cost recovery. The certified cost statement is prima facie evidence of reasonable costs; the ALJ may reduce or eliminate the award, but may not increase it.
The outcome
Probation reinstated for three years. Costs reduced from $10,778 to $4,000.
OAH No. 2023110124
$4,000ordered in cost recovery under B&P §125.3 — reduced from a $10,778 request.What the rule actually says
Cost recovery is genuinely contestable, and it is the part of a disciplinary case respondents most often concede without argument. The Board's own figures show why it matters: across four years it ordered $229,823 in cost recovery and collected $67,857. The published statement is a starting point, not an invoice.
Discussion
Analysis, not part of the decision
This is a small decision with an outsized practical lesson. On a petition to revoke probation the Board sought $10,778 — the largest cost-recovery request in a probation matter in this dataset — and the final order set it at $4,000 while reinstating probation for three years. The figure moved by more than sixty per cent because someone argued about it.
The Board's own aggregate numbers show why this matters at scale. Across four years it ordered $229,823 in cost recovery and collected $67,857. A published cost statement is a starting position supported by a certification, not an invoice, and §125.3 expressly permits the administrative law judge to reduce or eliminate it.
Set this beside the probation-violation case in the same group, where non-payment was one of four grounds to revoke. The two together make the argument: contest the amount at the time it is set, because after it is set it becomes a condition you can lose your license over.
Where insurance reaches, and where it does not
Since no policy pays cost recovery, every dollar argued off it is a dollar out of the licensee's own pocket. That makes it one of the few places where paying a lawyer has a directly measurable return.
What would have changed it
- Ask for the certified cost statement and read it. It itemizes investigator and Attorney General time, and the reasonableness of each line is the thing in issue.
Questions
For a law and ethics seminar, or for yourself
- On what basis can a respondent challenge a certified cost statement? What evidence would you want?
- The Board collects under a third of what it orders. What does that gap suggest about how the amounts are set?
- Why might a respondent facing revocation not bother arguing about costs, and why is that a mistake?
Source. This write-up is drawn from the signed public decision in the case number above. Names, cities and employers have been removed — why. To pull the original, open the Board's quarterly newsletter archive, find the issue covering June 26, 2025, and match the case number in the Formal Disciplinary Actions section. Not legal advice.
