Correction Orders and Suspension Terms in Engineering Disciplinary Cases: Arizona and New Mexico

Disciplinary actions in engineering, architecture, and surveying serve both corrective and punitive functions that safeguard public trust while enforcing professional accountability. Among the range of sanctions; correction orders and suspension periods stand out for their ability to impose rehabilitative obligations alongside restrictions on practice. The presented study examines 129 disciplinary cases from Arizona and New Mexico to analyze the conditions under which correction orders and suspensions are applied, the length of suspensions imposed, and the decision-making processes that shape these outcomes. Disciplinary outcomes demonstrated clear patterns across violations and jurisdictions. Defective design, cross-disciplinary issues, and license misuse were most often tied to correction orders and suspensions, while administrative lapses, such as expired registrations, rarely led to suspension. Civil engineers generally face a greater likelihood of suspension compared to other professions. Financially, suspensions tended to coincide with higher investigation costs rather than small fines. At the state level, New Mexico showed fewer suspension outcomes, whereas Arizona exhibited a broader mix of enforcement approaches. These findings highlight how regulatory boards use correction orders and suspension periods in combination to enforce compliance, deter misconduct, and promote rehabilitation. By providing empirical evidence of sanction patterns and their underlying drivers, this research contributes to a clearer understanding of professional accountability, thus offering guidance for both practitioners seeking to avoid career-impacting penalties and regulatory boards striving for fairness, consistency, and transparency in enforcement.