Parallel proceedings and professional license defense

For a professional or business owner, avoiding a criminal conviction may be only one part of the problem. Continued practice, program participation, insurance coverage, commercial relationships, and the ability to keep a business operating can depend on proceedings with different rules and timelines.

Charles Rollins’s practice includes professional license defense and related criminal, civil, and regulatory matters. His background in fraud defense, compliance, corporate general counsel work, and commercial litigation supports an approach that considers how a decision will affect the client beyond a single case.

Can the government pursue civil and criminal matters at the same time?

Yes. The Justice Department’s policy on parallel proceedings calls for appropriate coordination among criminal, civil, regulatory, and administrative components, subject to legal restrictions. A civil inquiry therefore should not be assumed to be isolated from a criminal investigation. Nor should every exchange between agencies be assumed lawful without examining the applicable limits.

In United States v. Kordel, the Supreme Court rejected the proposition that the simultaneous proceedings at issue necessarily invalidated the criminal prosecution. The Court also distinguished circumstances involving unfairness or special prejudice. The practical question is what information is being sought, how it may be used, and what protections are available in this particular proceeding.

Start with a shared chronology and a list of every pending demand. A deposition, board response, insurer questionnaire, and government interview may concern the same conduct while imposing different obligations. They should be evaluated together before anyone commits to a substantive account.

Can I invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil or licensing matter?

A civil label does not eliminate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination. But asserting it can have consequences different from those in a criminal trial. Baxter v. Palmigiano recognizes that adverse inferences may be permissible in civil proceedings when a party declines to respond to probative evidence.

That does not mean a licensing authority may automatically take away a professional’s livelihood solely for a valid assertion of the privilege. In Spevack v. Klein, the Supreme Court reversed an attorney’s disbarment arising from his invocation of the privilege. Applying these principles requires attention to the questions asked, the source of compulsion, the evidence independent of silence, and the governing profession-specific law.

The choice should not be reduced to “answer everything” or “refuse everything.” Counsel must evaluate particular requests, potential criminal exposure, any applicable immunity, and the consequences of the proposed response. An assertion of privilege is also not a reason to disregard appearance dates, filing requirements, or valid orders.

Will the civil case or board proceeding wait?

Do not plan on an automatic pause. Counsel should identify the authority for a stay or other protective relief, the factual overlap, the stage of the criminal investigation, and the concrete prejudice that continuing would cause. Depending on the forum, a focused request addressing a deposition or particular discovery may be more useful than an unsupported request to stop everything indefinitely.

Keep complying with existing obligations unless an agreement or order changes them. Build the schedule around the earliest consequential decision, which may be an administrative response or a contractual notice requirement rather than the next criminal court date. An unresolved request for relief is not the same as relief granted.

What needs attention before a plea or settlement?

A proposed resolution should be tested against every affected proceeding before it is accepted. Examine the admitted facts, offense or violation, release language, cooperation terms, reporting duties, and the agencies or parties actually bound by the agreement. A prosecutor’s agreement may leave a licensing board, private claimant, or other authority free to act.

Healthcare matters offer a concrete example. 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7 establishes mandatory and permissive grounds for exclusion from federal healthcare programs. Its definition of conviction includes qualifying guilty or no-contest pleas and certain deferred-adjudication arrangements. A disposition described informally as avoiding a conviction under state law may therefore require a separate federal exclusion analysis.

HHS-OIG explains that exclusion generally prevents federal healthcare program payment for items or services furnished, ordered, or prescribed by an excluded person or entity. Certain license actions, including specified surrenders, can also support permissive exclusion. A plan focused only on the sentence or on keeping one license may overlook the client’s ability to continue the work economically.

These are healthcare examples, not rules for every profession. Other licenses, registrations, contracts, and jurisdictions require their own review. No page can supply a universal reporting deadline or guarantee that a negotiated outcome will preserve a license.

How should several lawyers and advisers work together?

Define who represents whom and who is responsible for each proceeding. The individual and the business may need separate counsel. A lawyer handling a civil case should know about relevant criminal concerns before scheduling testimony; criminal counsel should know what a proposed factual admission may mean for a license or program.

Coordination also requires discipline about information sharing. Do not assume that a common interest, a confidentiality agreement, or copying lawyers on an email protects every exchange. Identify the legal basis for sharing privileged material, the recipients, and the purpose before circulating it. A useful working plan assigns responsibility for deadlines, record preservation, statements, and decisions without blending different clients’ interests.

Keep a clear distinction between records that must be preserved, information that must be produced, and information that may be disclosed strategically. Consider whether operational corrections are needed, while preserving an accurate record of what occurred. Do not rewrite historical records to match a preferred explanation.

What should I bring to the first conversation?

Initially, identify the agencies and parties, the profession or business involved, the type of notice received, and upcoming deadlines. Mention related proceedings even if someone has described them as separate or routine. After conflicts and an appropriate means of communication are addressed, counsel can identify which notices, agreements, policies, and records are needed.

Contact Charles Rollins, PC to discuss representation. Do not send confidential information before representation is agreed upon. For more on the firm’s background, see Charles Rollins’s experience and admissions.

This page provides general information, not legal advice. Licensing and procedural requirements vary by profession, agency, and jurisdiction. Representation is subject to applicable admission requirements. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.