Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy
Headline: State law upholding a licensing board’s power to revoke public accountant certificates is affirmed, allowing the board to hold revocation hearings and limiting courts’ ability to block those proceedings.
Holding: The Court ruled that the state law allowing a Board to issue and cancel public accountant certificates does not violate the U.S. Constitution and the Board may proceed with revocation hearings without a court injunction.
- Allows licensing boards to hold revocation hearings without immediate court interference.
- Certified public accountants cannot block board hearings before charges are tried.
- Boards need not publish detailed rules before holding hearings.
Summary
Background
A state statute created a Board of Public Accountancy, authorizing it to examine applicants, issue certificates to qualified public accountants, and cancel certificates for unprofessional conduct or other sufficient cause after 20 days’ written notice and a hearing. The named board members were accused of bringing charges against a certified public accountant who had built a large practice. He asked a court to stop the Board from holding the hearing or revoking his certificate. A temporary order issued, but the trial court dismissed his suit and the state supreme court affirmed before the matter reached this Court.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the state law and Board procedures violated the State or U.S. Constitution by depriving the accountant of property or applying an ex post facto rule. The Court accepted the state court’s reasoning and concluded the statute did not, on its face, violate the Federal Constitution. The Court declined to decide what remedy the accountant might have if his certificate were later wrongfully revoked, and it emphasized that a certificate confirms reputation but does not create an indefeasible right to do business that prevents regulation or forfeiture under the statute.
Real world impact
The decision allows the licensing board to proceed with revocation hearings under the state statute and prevents courts from stopping those hearings in advance based on speculation. Certified accountants remain subject to professional regulation and possible loss of certificate, while any claim for wrongful revocation would have to be addressed after the Board acts, not before.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?