What to do if your licensing board investigates you for psychedelic work

Last reviewed: August 2026 · Psychedelic law changes quickly — verify current status before relying on this page.

For licensed professionals in any field who have received notice that their licensing board is investigating them in connection with psychedelic work — whether as a facilitator, as a clinician who discussed or recommended psilocybin services, or as a professional who personally accessed psychedelic services.

The short answer

A licensing board investigation is a serious matter regardless of whether the conduct at issue was lawful under state law. The most important thing to do when you receive notice of a board investigation is to retain an attorney experienced in professional licensing defense before responding to the board about anything. A response made without counsel — even one that seems straightforward — can become part of the evidentiary record of the investigation and may limit your options later. The second most important thing is to preserve all records relevant to the matter and not alter, destroy, or share them without legal advice. Everything else follows from those two steps.

Why board investigations arise in the psychedelic context

Licensing board investigations involving psychedelic work typically arise from one of four sources: a client or patient complaint; a complaint from a colleague, employer, or supervising professional; information shared between OPS and a professional licensing board under HB 2387’s information-sharing provisions; or a self-report triggered by a mandatory disclosure obligation such as ORS 475A.519’s conviction notification requirement.

The conduct that generates complaints in this space falls into several categories. For dual-licensed facilitators, the most common triggers are alleged violations of OPS rules during sessions — particularly conduct during administration sessions, boundary violations, or failure to maintain the non-directive approach — that are then reported to both OPS and the professional board. For clinicians who discuss or recommend psilocybin services, complaints may allege that the clinician made health claims that exceeded what the evidence supports, failed to conduct adequate medication review, or recommended services to a patient for whom they were inappropriate. For professionals who personally accessed psilocybin services, complaints may allege impaired professional practice following a session.

The dual-investigation problem

Under HB 2387, OPS and the seven identified professional licensing boards share complaint and investigation information when a dual-licensed facilitator is under investigation. This means a complaint filed with OPS may trigger board involvement, and a complaint filed with a professional board may reach OPS. A dual-licensed facilitator who receives notice of investigation from either body should assume the other may become involved and should retain counsel who can advise on both proceedings simultaneously — or retain separate counsel for each.

The two proceedings operate under different evidentiary standards, different procedural rules, and different potential consequences. An OPS investigation can result in license revocation, civil penalties, or referral to law enforcement. A professional board investigation can result in board discipline ranging from a letter of concern to license revocation. Statements made in one proceeding may be used in the other. A strategy developed for one without accounting for the other can create unintended consequences.

What to do immediately upon receiving notice

Do not respond to the board without legal counsel. This applies to initial inquiry letters, requests for written explanation, invitations to appear for informal interviews, and any other form of board contact. A response that seems cooperative and complete may inadvertently make admissions, waive procedural rights, or foreclose defenses. Board investigators are not neutral — their role is to gather information that supports a finding of whether a violation occurred. An attorney advising on a board response has a different role.

Retain an attorney who has professional licensing defense experience in your jurisdiction and, if possible, familiarity with Oregon’s psilocybin regulatory framework. General civil litigation experience is not a substitute for administrative licensing defense experience. Professional licensing proceedings have their own procedural rules, timelines, and strategic considerations that differ from civil court.

Notify your malpractice or professional liability carrier of the investigation immediately. Most professional liability policies include a duty to defend in board proceedings, but the coverage is typically conditioned on timely notification. Failure to notify the carrier promptly may affect coverage. The carrier may also have a panel of approved defense attorneys with relevant licensing board experience.

Preserve all records relevant to the matter. This includes client records, session notes, communications with the complaining party, communications with OPS or other regulatory bodies, and any documentation of the conduct at issue. Do not alter, delete, or remove any records. If records are stored at a service center under OAR 333-333-4820, do not remove them — but confirm with your attorney what access you have and what the preservation obligations are.

Do not contact the complainant. Any communication with a person who has filed a complaint — even an attempt to clarify or apologize — can complicate the investigation and may be characterized as intimidation or an attempt to influence a witness.

Understanding the board’s process

Most Oregon professional licensing boards investigate complaints through an initial review to determine whether the alleged conduct, if true, would constitute a violation of the board’s practice act or rules. If the complaint clears that threshold, the board conducts a formal investigation — which may include document requests, written interrogatories, and interviews. If the investigation produces findings that support a proposed adverse action, the board issues a notice of proposed action.

The licensee has procedural rights at each stage. In Oregon, administrative contested case procedures under ORS chapter 183 apply to most professional licensing board actions. A licensee facing proposed license revocation or suspension has the right to a contested case hearing — a formal administrative proceeding in which evidence is presented, witnesses may be examined, and the licensee has the opportunity to present a defense before an administrative law judge. A final order adverse to the licensee can typically be appealed to circuit court.

The procedural timeline matters. Deadlines for responding to board inquiries, requesting hearings, and filing appeals are typically short. Missing a deadline can result in waiver of rights or a default finding. An attorney handling the matter will track these deadlines — which is another reason to retain counsel immediately rather than deciding to self-represent through the initial stages.

HB 2387 protections and their limits in investigations

For professionals regulated by the seven boards named in HB 2387, the statute prohibits discipline solely for discussing psilocybin services with patients or for lawfully providing psilocybin services as a licensed facilitator. These protections apply when the conduct was lawful under ORS 475A and the facilitator was properly licensed and notified OHA as required.

The protections do not insulate conduct that violated OPS rules, conduct that crossed into clinical work during an administration session, or conduct that would otherwise constitute a violation of the professional licensing act independent of the psilocybin context. A therapist-facilitator who provided psychotherapy during an administration session — prohibited under OAR 333-333-5130(2) — has violated OPS rules, and that OPS rule violation is not protected by HB 2387. The board may receive that information through HB 2387’s information-sharing provisions and act on it independently.

For professionals regulated by boards not named in HB 2387, the protections do not apply at all. A licensed chiropractor, dentist, or occupational therapist who engaged in psilocybin work and faces board investigation is not within the HB 2387 protective framework and faces the full scope of their board’s conduct and fitness standards.

Specific considerations by profession

For licensed therapists and counselors investigated by OBLPCT, the most common issues in the psilocybin context are dual-licensure administration session violations, boundary violations with clients, and informed consent failures. OBLPCT’s investigation process follows Oregon’s contested case procedures. An OBLPCT investigation and an OPS investigation arising from the same conduct will share information under HB 2387.

For physicians investigated by the Oregon Medical Board, the investigation process is similar but the OMB has independent authority and investigative resources. The OMB’s fitness standards and the grounds for discipline are set out in ORS chapter 677. An OMB investigation that produces findings of impaired practice or ethical violations can result in license conditions, suspension, or revocation independent of OPS findings.

For attorneys investigated by the Oregon State Bar, the process runs through the OSB’s disciplinary framework under BR 2.1 et seq. The OSB has its own investigators and disciplinary counsel. An OSB investigation is not governed by ORS chapter 183 — it is a separate disciplinary system with its own procedural rules. An attorney under OSB investigation should retain outside counsel rather than relying solely on their own legal knowledge, for the same reasons any professional should not represent themselves in a board proceeding involving their own conduct.

For law enforcement officers investigated by Oregon POST, the process involves POST’s professional standards unit and may proceed concurrently with an internal affairs investigation by the officer’s employing agency. The two are separate, and action in one does not necessarily drive the outcome in the other.

If criminal conduct is alleged

A board investigation and a criminal prosecution can proceed simultaneously. They are separate proceedings with different evidentiary standards — a board can find a violation by a preponderance of the evidence; a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the conduct at issue potentially implicates criminal law — including allegations of sexual assault, fraud, or other conduct that could be charged as a crime — retain criminal defense counsel immediately and separately from professional licensing defense counsel. Do not make any statements to the board, to OPS, or to anyone else about the conduct until criminal defense counsel has been involved and has advised on the intersection between the two proceedings.

When public information may be enough

Each professional licensing board in Oregon publishes its practice act, administrative rules, and disciplinary procedures on its website and through the Oregon Secretary of State’s administrative rules database. ORS chapter 183 governs Oregon contested case procedures and is available through the Oregon Legislative Assembly. HB 2387 and its information-sharing provisions are available through the Oregon Legislative Assembly. ORS 475A.477 (OPS grounds for license action) and ORS 475A.519 (duty to notify OHA of conviction) are also publicly available.

When you should speak with a lawyer

The moment you receive any communication indicating that a licensing board is investigating you — an inquiry letter, a request for records, a notice of complaint, or a call from a board investigator — retain professional licensing defense counsel before responding. Do not wait to see how the investigation develops. Early retention of counsel almost always produces better outcomes than retention after an initial response has already been made.

You might also want to read

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Professional licensing board procedures and administrative law change frequently. For advice specific to your situation, retain a licensed attorney with professional licensing defense experience immediately upon receiving notice of an investigation.