In re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Petersen, 180 Wash. 2d 768

Petersen, a long‑time certified professional guardian, faced Board discipline for conduct involving D.S. and J.S. Petersen Place placements.
The SOPC conducted an inquest at the request of Commissioner Valente, leading to a Board complaint filed April 25, 2012 and a hearing in Oct 2012.
Hearing Officer Simmons found multiple SOP violations related to relocation decisions and failure to involve family and care planning, causing significant ward injuries.
Recommended sanctions included a 1‑year suspension, 3‑month prohibition on new cases, a 24‑month post‑suspension probation, and cost shifting; the Board adopted most sanctions but reduced fees.
Petersen challenged the Board’s decision, arguing separation of powers, appearance of fairness, evidentiary standard, and lack of proportionality analysis; the court remanded for proportionality and consistency analysis.
The opinion affirms Board structure and due process while remanding to consider proportionality with respect to sanctions and fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Separation of powers validity	Petersen: Board’s quasi‑legislative, executive, and judicial powers threaten separation of powers.	Board: Powers properly delegated within judiciary; no constitutional violation.	No separation of powers violation
Appearance of fairness	Petersen: Inquest and officer biases create appearance of unfairness.	Board: no proven bias; proceedings were fair and impartial.	Appearance of fairness not violated
Evidentiary standard	Petersen: Preponderance standard unreasonably lowers safeguards; argues for clear and convincing.	Board: Mathews balancing supports preponderance given safeguards; state interest strong.	Preponderance standard appropriate
Proportionality and consistency	Petersen: sanctions and fees may be disproportionate; require consistency with similar cases.	Board: sanctions justified by aggravating factors; consistency analyzed historically but not required to mirror past cases.	Remand for explicit proportionality/consistency analysis
Procedural safeguards sufficiency	Petersen: SOPs mirror due process; concerns about procedures.	Board: procedures provide notice, representation, discovery, and review; adequate under governing standards.	Procedural safeguards are sufficient

Guardianship of Lamb, 173 Wn.2d 173 (2011) (guardianship standards and court oversight)
State v. Simmons, 152 Wn.2d 450 (2004) (procedural safeguards in disciplinary regimes)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Haley, 156 Wn.2d 324 (2006) (disciplinary rules and enforcement by the judiciary)
In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against King, 168 Wn.2d 888 (2010) (fairness presumption in hearing officers)
Hardee v. Department of Social & Health Services, 172 Wn.2d 1 (2011) (preliminary balancing test in due process for administrative proceedings)
Carrick v. Locke, 125 Wn.2d 129 (1994) (separation of powers framework and agency delegation)