Professional Malpractice Prosecutions
What Is Professional Malpractice?
Professional malpractice occurs when a licensed professional fails to meet the standard of care or acts negligently, recklessly, or dishonestly, resulting in harm to a client, patient, or the public.
While malpractice is typically a civil wrong (tort), it can rise to the level of criminal prosecution or regulatory discipline when it involves:
Gross negligence
Fraud or dishonesty
Breach of statutory duties
Harm or death caused by recklessness
Falsification of records
Types of Professional Malpractice Subject to Prosecution
Medical Malpractice – Gross negligence, surgical errors, overprescription
Legal Malpractice – Misappropriation of client funds, fraud, intentional misconduct
Engineering/Architectural Malpractice – Design flaws causing death or injury
Accounting Malpractice – Financial fraud, tax evasion assistance
Pharmaceutical Malpractice – Dispensing wrong medication, criminal negligence
Case Law Analysis – More Than 5 Cases
1. R v. Adomako [1995] 1 AC 171 (UK)
Profession: Anaesthetist (Medical)
Facts:
Dr. Adomako failed to notice that a patient’s oxygen tube had disconnected during surgery. The patient died as a result. His failure to act was grossly negligent.
Legal Issue:
Whether a medical professional can be criminally liable for gross negligence manslaughter.
Decision:
The House of Lords upheld the conviction. The jury found that Dr. Adomako’s conduct fell so far below the expected standard that it was criminal.
Significance:
Landmark case defining gross negligence manslaughter in a professional medical context.
2. United States v. Kaplan, 2007 (Federal District Court)
Profession: Physician (Medical)
Facts:
Dr. Kaplan ran a “pill mill” where he prescribed opioids without proper medical examinations, leading to multiple overdoses.
Legal Issue:
Whether prescribing controlled substances without medical justification constitutes criminal malpractice.
Decision:
He was convicted under the Controlled Substances Act for unlawful distribution and involuntary manslaughter for patient deaths.
Significance:
Example of how malpractice crosses into criminal drug offenses when prescribing is reckless or profit-driven.
3. People v. Sorrel, 219 Cal. App. 3d 1110 (1990)
Profession: Pharmacist (Pharmaceutical)
Facts:
A pharmacist knowingly filled prescriptions that were clearly forged and in excessive doses, contributing to a patient’s death.
Legal Issue:
Whether a pharmacist can be held criminally liable for aiding and abetting drug abuse through negligent dispensing.
Decision:
Court upheld conviction for involuntary manslaughter and violation of drug control laws.
Significance:
Extended criminal liability to licensed non-physician professionals (like pharmacists) for reckless conduct.
4. United States v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 544 U.S. 696 (2005)
Profession: Accountants (Corporate Accounting Firm)
Facts:
Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm for Enron, was accused of destroying documents related to investigations into Enron’s financial misdeeds.
Legal Issue:
Whether the firm obstructed justice by destroying evidence.
Decision:
Initially convicted, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, finding improper jury instructions about intent.
Significance:
Although reversed, the case highlighted how accounting firms can face criminal charges for malpractice involving evidence tampering and fraud.
5. In re Gatti, 330 Or. 517 (2000)
Profession: Attorney (Legal)
Facts:
Attorney Gatti posed as a medical board investigator to gather information about a chiropractic claim, violating ethical and legal norms.
Legal Issue:
Whether attorneys may engage in deception under the guise of legal investigation.
Decision:
Gatti was disbarred, and the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that attorneys are not exempt from laws against deception.
Significance:
Although not a criminal case, this shows how unethical conduct by legal professionals can result in professional prosecution (discipline) and lay groundwork for criminal fraud charges.
6. R v. Prentice & Sullman [1993] 4 All ER 935 (UK)
Profession: Junior Doctors (Medical)
Facts:
Two junior doctors administered the wrong drug dosage due to a misunderstanding of procedures, leading to a patient’s death.
Legal Issue:
Whether a mistake or incompetence amounts to criminal negligence.
Decision:
Court held that criminal liability arises only in cases of gross deviation from accepted standards, not mere mistakes.
Significance:
Clarified the threshold for criminal liability in medical errors: gross negligence, not ordinary incompetence.
7. R v. Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8
Profession: Obstetrician (Medical)
Facts:
Bateman performed a difficult birth at home without transferring the patient to a hospital. The patient later died.
Legal Issue:
Could the doctor be criminally liable for choosing an inadequate level of care?
Decision:
Appeal dismissed; court held that the conduct was not gross enough to justify criminal conviction.
Significance:
One of the earliest cases defining criminal professional negligence.
Key Legal Principles from the Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Gross Negligence Threshold | Criminal liability arises when conduct is far below accepted standards. |
| Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) | Professionals must have reckless disregard or intent to harm/fraud. |
| Standard of Care in Criminal Law | Not every mistake or civil malpractice rises to criminal liability. |
| Duty of Care | Professionals have a duty to act in accordance with their training and licenses. |
| Scope of Practice | Acting outside professional boundaries (e.g., unauthorized prescribing) is criminal. |
| Deception and Fraud | Fraudulent conduct by professionals (lawyers, accountants) can lead to prosecution. |
| Public Safety Focus | Courts consider harm to public when deciding criminal culpability. |
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Profession | Offense | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Adomako (1995) | Anaesthetist | Gross Negligence Manslaughter | Convicted | Defined criminal medical negligence |
| U.S. v. Kaplan (2007) | Doctor | Drug Distribution, Manslaughter | Convicted | Prescription abuse as criminal offense |
| People v. Sorrel (1990) | Pharmacist | Involuntary Manslaughter | Convicted | Drug error linked to criminal liability |
| U.S. v. Arthur Andersen (2005) | Accounting Firm | Obstruction of Justice | Conviction overturned | Corporate criminal malpractice |
| In re Gatti (2000) | Lawyer | Fraudulent Misrepresentation | Disbarred | Legal ethics and regulatory prosecution |
| R v. Prentice & Sullman (1993) | Junior Doctors | Gross Negligence Manslaughter | Acquitted | Clarified negligence vs. criminality in errors |
| R v. Bateman (1925) | Obstetrician | Alleged Negligent Treatment | Acquitted | Early precedent for gross negligence in medical practice |
Conclusion
Professional malpractice prosecutions lie at the intersection of criminal law, ethics, and civil liability. Criminal prosecution is typically reserved for the most serious breaches — where conduct is reckless, fraudulent, or grossly negligent.
The case law shows that:
Medical professionals are most commonly prosecuted under gross negligence manslaughter.
Legal and accounting professionals are more often prosecuted for fraud, obstruction, or ethics violations.
Criminal courts demand a higher threshold than civil courts for liability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments