PI Licensing in trouble

[TheGrey]

I would rather see private PI associations/guilds over government regulation.

In a perfect world, that would be awesome. Because PIs all work well together and all pull for the common benefit of the industry.

In reality, what we have is people that should never be PIs moving from states that require licensing, to states that don't. That means they can prey on people, move to a different city, print up business cards with a different phone number and seek more people to exploit. After all, associations have no power over members save for administrative methods. And frankly, speaking as a board member for 13 years, it's like herding cats to get everyone on the same page.

Looking at it from an advantage for PIs themselves to be licensed: I've had people that would not settle for an interview until they saw my license. I have to show it to clerks to get records. Sure, the THEORY of Open Records is alive and well, but we all know how theory rarely pans out into reality.

[Irving]

In reality, what we have is people that should never be PIs moving from states that require licensing, to states that don't. That means they can prey on people, move to a different city, print up business cards with a different phone number and seek more people to exploit. After all, associations have no power over members save for administrative methods. And frankly, speaking as a board member for 13 years, it's like herding cats to get everyone on the same page.

How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.

[Gman]

How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.

Agreed. It's largely an opportunity to charge fees. The requirements are usually so poorly worded by the politicians that they become meaningless.

[Irving]

I don't want to highjack this thread into a discussion that goes off topic though, because people wanting to improve their industry for the betterment of the end user is a great thing and we need more of it.

[FoxtArt]

How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.

Agreed. In most licensed industries, DORA hardly regulates them at all, it's fee collection. Ones they are supposed to inspect they usually don't, severe violations are a slap on the wrist, etc., and revocations are very few. It's all about $ when you involve DORA.

That's not to say that PI's shouldn't be regulated somehow, but I'm not in general agreement that DORA does anything other than administers a test at the beginning and then exists just to collect $. Any revocations initiated by a DORA investigation? (and not, from say, a felony conviction). And even the regulation argument isn't the strongest out there, because prior to (was it 2013?) it seemed to self-regulate relatively well; moreover requirements tied to the justice system can result in a monopoly that deprives certain people of assistance. (e.g. their friend can't help them get evidentiary photos, because "not a licensed PI", or they can't get a suggestion from the retired attorney down the block because "not a licensed attorney".)

I think there's better solutions that may be available (not that e.g. I have a suggestion), but our state may not me amenable to them politically.

[TheGrey]

How is this any different than most other contract work though? In the industry I work in, some states require a license, and some don't. The ones that do, the testing has increasingly little to do with one's ability to actually do the job and the whole licensing issue just becomes about money for the state and the testing agencies. I can see arguments for both sides, but not strong ones.

No, I get you on this. It's a fine line. What it boils down to is consumer protection. If a PI with a license does something wrong that impacts their client (and I'm talking some serious crap- PIs can fuck people's lives up ROYALLY if they don't pay attention to what they're doing. I'm not talking just money. Assets, custody of kids, and people's secrets can all be massively scuppered really easily. And that's awful because people trust investigators) the client has recourse- PIs are required to have a bond, and they can lose their license. If there's no license (again) it becomes the wild wild west again and people that think PIs are licensed may be taken advantage of. It has happened, and it's happened too many times.

[TheGrey]

Agreed. In most licensed industries, DORA hardly regulates them at all, it's fee collection. Ones they are supposed to inspect they usually don't, severe violations are a slap on the wrist, etc., and revocations are very few. It's all about $ when you involve DORA.

That's not to say that PI's shouldn't be regulated somehow, but I'm not in general agreement that DORA does anything other than administers a test at the beginning and then exists just to collect $. Any revocations initiated by a DORA investigation? (and not, from say, a felony conviction). And even the regulation argument isn't the strongest out there, because prior to (was it 2013?) it seemed to self-regulate relatively well; moreover requirements tied to the justice system can result in a monopoly that deprives certain people of assistance. (e.g. their friend can't help them get evidentiary photos, because "not a licensed PI", or they can't get a suggestion from the retired attorney down the block because "not a licensed attorney".)

I think there's better solutions that may be available (not that e.g. I have a suggestion), but our state may not me amenable to them politically.

It may have seemed to self-regulate pretty well, but that was a very thin veil that the public saw. After all, people that were victims of people that called themselves PIs had nowhere to turn. Contracts were not a requirement, so there was no proof. The Attorney General's office was not interested. I lost count of all the calls received through the state association information line, and it broke my heart to hear the stories people told about being ripped off or sinking their life's savings into the so-called investigator's retainer. Then there was the investigator that was a pedophile (8 times over, no less) that could continue to work as a PI, because there were no standards or ethics required. Oh, he wasn't supposed to go near children, but I'm sure the potential clients didn't know that.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of so-called investigators that lied about their experience, or the ones that worked both sides of cases. Or the "PIs" that were actually sociopaths and used their databases to stalk and harass exes.

And yeah, we would bring this up to DORA, and to legislators when we were seeking licensure. Between choices of protecting their constituents and protecting their backroom deals...I'll let you guess how things turned out.

[Irving]

Fine line indeed. Is there a way to better classify PIs in a way that forces a path to recourse for clients so it is in the PI's best interest to be above board? I guess that's what you're after in one form or another. I'm trying to think of how a profession like an architect instills less risk of fly by night individuals. I suppose the lengthy and expensive schooling is the major barrier to entry in that field, as opposed to 20-40 hours of continuing education every two years where the classes hardly change and you can snooze through them. Can/do PIs get E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance policies like architects and similar professions can?

Either way, I wish you luck. Every profession needs less scammers and dirt bags.

[TheGrey]

Fine line indeed. Is there a way to better classify PIs in a way that forces a path to recourse for clients so it is in the PI's best interest to be above board? I guess that's what you're after in one form or another. I'm trying to think of how a profession like an architect instills less risk of fly by night individuals. I suppose the lengthy and expensive schooling is the major barrier to entry in that field, as opposed to 20-40 hours of continuing education every two years where the classes hardly change and you can snooze through them. Can/do PIs get E&O (Errors and Omissions) insurance policies like architects and similar professions can?

Either way, I wish you luck. Every profession needs less scammers and dirt bags.

They sure can, and the professional PIs get E & O Insurance as well.
As far as consumer protection goes, that's why we have licensing. Unfortunately, after crafting the initial bill, the legislation process amended the teeth from it until it was a shell of what it once was. No continuing education requirements- and no way to add them now, because DORA points out that because the State Association provides training, it is a "self-serving amendment."

There's a whole lot more, but in the end the point is moot; there's no other option but to dance with the devil in the pale moonlight, as it's the only game in town. There is no other regulating agency but this one; they are adamantly opposed to us being licensed and they have the ear of the Governor. "Consumer Protection" is clearly lie.

[FoxtArt]

Thinking about this a bit, I think there is a happy medium between distinguishing professional and non professional judicial assistance. Many other countries, for instance, let a person be represented by a non-attorney friend (for free), requiring appropriate signed disclosures, waivers, etc. Not here, of course, under the guise of "your protection" the system would prefer someone either receive no help at all or send everything they can to one of the "professionals", no intermediate choices. And indeed, even the original Greek attorney was required to work for free. I don't think requiring licensure and monopolizing the judicial system is a benefit to anyone. Obviously talking about more than PIs here, but the system is designed to generate profit selectively. Look at private prisons, civil, criminal, it is purvasive. Hell, even look at court records here - if you want a record of a public proceeding in most venues in this state for any reason, you HAVE to pay a transcriptionist on a list to transcribe the audio, perhaps up to $2000 a pop, and they cannot release said audio to you. That has no purpose except paying transcriptionist, there is no justifiable excuse. That is a lot of the "cost" of licensure and regulation in the judicial industry, the tenants work together to extract as much $ as they can. Every aspect of it instead needs two faces: one, the paid, insured, professional; the other, non-professional, free help with disclosures should not be blocked. A wife whose account was drained by her husband shouldn't be denied all evidence collection just because edge can't pay a professionals $2,000 "retainer". That type of thing can be just as damaging as a bad unlicensed PI.