Wash. Rev. Code » Title 18 · Chapter 18.235
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.110 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Upon finding unprofessional conduct, except as provided in RCW 9.97.020, the disciplinary authority may issue an order providing for one or any combination of the following:
(a) Revocation of the license for an interval of time;
(b) Suspension of the license for a fixed or indefinite term;
(c) Restriction or limitation of the practice;
(d) Satisfactory completion of a specific program of remedial education or treatment;
(e) Monitoring of the practice in a manner directed by the disciplinary authority;
(f) Censure or reprimand;
(g) Compliance with conditions of probation for a designated period of time;
(h) Payment of a fine for each violation found by the disciplinary authority, not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation. The disciplinary authority must consider aggravating or mitigating circumstances in assessing any fine. Funds received must be deposited in the related program account;
(i) Denial of an initial or renewal license application for an interval of time; or
(j) Other corrective action.
(2) The disciplinary authority may require reimbursement to the disciplinary authority for the investigative costs incurred in investigating the matter that resulted in issuance of an order under this section, but only if any of the sanctions in subsection (1)(a) through (j) of this section is ordered.
(3) Any of the actions under this section may be totally or partly stayed by the disciplinary authority. In determining what action is appropriate, the disciplinary authority must first consider what sanctions are necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. Only after these provisions have been made may the disciplinary authority consider and include in the order requirements designed to rehabilitate the license holder or applicant. All costs associated with compliance with orders issued under this section are the obligation of the license holder or applicant.
(4) The licensee or applicant may enter into a stipulated disposition of charges that includes one or more of the sanctions of this section, but only after a statement of charges has been issued and the licensee has been afforded the opportunity for a hearing and has elected on the record to forego such a hearing. The stipulation shall either contain one or more specific findings of unprofessional conduct or a statement by the licensee acknowledging that evidence is sufficient to justify one or more specified findings of unprofessional conduct. The stipulations entered into under this subsection are considered formal disciplinary action for all purposes.
[ 2016 c 81 s 14; 2007 c 256 s 18; 2002 c 86 s 112.]

Notes:

Finding—Conflict with federal requirements—2016 c 81: See notes following RCW 9.97.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2011–2018 · leading case: Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 2× “50 RCW provides some exceptions and defenses (or authorization) to this general prohibition on disinterring human remains. Remains may be disinterred with a surviving family member's consent or, if a relative's consent cannot be obtained, by court order.”
Cummings v. Dep't of Licensing, 355 P.3d 1155 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “220 and RCW 18.235.110. Both statutes allow the Director to revoke private investigator licenses upon a determination that the licensee engaged in unprofessional conduct.”
Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Former RCW 18.235.110(1)(a) (2002). She found unprofessional conduct and, based on that conduct, revoked Ms.”
Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Former RCW 18.235.110(l)(a) (2002). She found unprofessional conduct and, based on that conduct, revoked Ms.”
Lisa Cummings, Dba Mod Investigations v. Wa State Dep't Of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “The Director adopted the Department's conclusion that "the number and severity of violations and the potential for harm" warranted the sanction.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.110(1)(a) — 1 case
Hickethier v. State Dept. of Licensing, 244 P.3d 1010 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Former RCW 18.235.110(1)(a) (2002). She found unprofessional conduct and, based on that conduct, revoked Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.110(1)(h) — 1 case
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). “50 RCW provides some exceptions and defenses (or authorization) to this general prohibition on disinterring human remains. Remains may be disinterred with a surviving family member's consent or, if a relative's consent cannot be obtained, by court order.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.110(3) — 1 case
Lisa Cummings, Dba Mod Investigations v. Wa State Dep't Of Licensing (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The Director adopted the Department's conclusion that "the number and severity of violations and the potential for harm" warranted the sanction.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.110(l)(a) — 1 case
Hickethier v. Dep't of Licensing, 159 Wash. App. 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “Former RCW 18.235.110(l)(a) (2002). She found unprofessional conduct and, based on that conduct, revoked Ms.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 18.235.110(l)(h) — 1 case
Southwick, Inc. v. Wash. State, 426 P.3d 693 (Wash. 2018). “50 RCW provides some exceptions and defenses (or authorization) to this general prohibition on disinterring human remains. Remains may be disinterred with a surviving family member's consent or, if a relative's consent cannot be obtained, by court order.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.