Disciplinary Action Trends within Engineering and Architecture Professions in Arizona and New Mexico

Abstract This research investigates trends in disciplinary actions within the engineering and architecture professions in Arizona and New Mexico, focusing on the nature, frequency, and outcomes of complaints filed with state technical registration boards. By analyzing a dataset of disciplinary cases using a qualitative analysis software and statistical tools, this study identifies key factors influencing regulatory decisions, such as the type of litigation, causes of action, professional discipline, and practice structure (individual versus firm). Results show notable differences between Arizona and New Mexico procedures, with Arizona favoring consent agreements—like settlements with injunctive elements—and New Mexico relying more heavily on evidence-based rulings. Significant findings include correlations between professional discipline and outcomes, the impact of confessions, evidence, and advisory committee rulings on fine amounts, and the risk that architectural firms have received disciplinary actions because of expired registrations or no registration. The analysis highlights the regulatory emphasis on public protection and ethical compliance, offering insights for professionals seeking to avoid disciplinary pitfalls and guidance for policymakers aiming to enhance oversight mechanisms.