In addition to lawsuits, professionals accused of substandard practice often face inquiries from the licensing authorities in the states in which they practice. New Hampshire has many such boards, most of which are staffed by volunteers and aided by members of the State Attorney General’s Office. Those boards typically investigate professionals if they become aware of a lawsuit, or a number of lawsuits, or as a result a specific complaint or expression of concern from a member of the public. The boards typically have the authority to remove or suspend one’s license to practice one’s profession, condition the license on remedial study, medical treatment or therapy, or require that the professional’s Practice be monitored and/or audited, at the professional’s expense, with reports being filed with the board.
  
Another facet of the “malpractice” problem for professionals involves the impact of such claims on their relations with their partners and colleagues, and the institutions in which they practice. When one is accused of substandard practice, it may be necessary for colleague and the institutions within which the accused professional practices to implement measures to protect members of the public, and themselves, while all the while remaining supportive of the accused professional, who remains their colleague. The maintenance of a collegial relationship throughout such a period of tension can be facilitated by experienced negotiators aware of the fundamental convergence of the parties’ interests – for the most part.  

   Although the consequences of malpractice litigation can trigger the sequence of derivative challenges outlined above, it is of the utmost importance for the professional under attack to remember that the only truly adversary relationship is with the party who filed a lawsuit seeking money damages as compensation for what is perceived as a bad outcome. Uncomfortable as it may feel, the scrutiny from partners, licensing boards, professional associations and the other institutions that are important to one’s professional life should not be regarded as hostile in intent and should be understood as being necessary for the protection of partners, colleagues and the institutions within which they practice, and the preservation of the public’s trust in the largely self-regulated professions.