Agency Discipline Proceedings-The Preponderance of Clear and Convincing Evidence

In legal cases, the burden of proof depends on the seriousness of the situation. In civil cases, the standard is usually “preponderance of the evidence,” where both parties share the burden. For more serious accusations, like fraud, the evidence must be “clear and convincing.” In criminal cases, the state must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In federal law, the preponderance standard is used, except in certain cases where clear and convincing evidence is needed. In Florida administrative law, the preponderance standard is also the norm, except when “penal” action is being taken. In Florida, there’s a new trend in administrative law that makes it harder to prove when government action is penal or puts your job at risk. Recent decisions have changed the rules, making it tougher to win your case. This article will explain what’s happening and how it could affect people in real life. In 1996, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that when an agency wants to deny someone a license or impose fines for breaking the law, they need to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. This means they need strong proof before taking away someone’s ability to do a job or fining them. Another court case later said that this high standard of proof also applies when someone’s reputation is at stake, not just their ability to work. According to Latham, if someone doesn’t have a license and isn’t trying to get one, their reputation deserves extra protection against government action. So if someone was accused of breaking the law before applying for a license, the government would have to prove their guilt with strong evidence. Latham raises the question of whether the government needs strong evidence to discipline someone, even if it’s not a big punishment. But the case might only apply to public officials accused of corruption and it’s not clear if it applies to everyone. In legal cases, the standard of proof required can affect how cases are prosecuted. Requiring agencies to prove cases by clear and convincing evidence may make it harder for agencies to enforce rules and statutes, leading to frustration. It may also reduce protection for the public in certain cases. Overall, while this standard may protect individuals, it could have negative effects on agency enforcement and public protection.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/agency-discipline-proceedings-the-preponderance-of-clear-and-convincing-evidence/