Issues in Ethics: ASHA Board of Ethics Jurisdiction
About This Document
Published 2025. This Issues in Ethics statement was originally published in 2003 and was last revised in 2020. It has been updated to make any references to the Code of Ethics consistent with the Code of Ethics (2023) (hereinafter, "Code of Ethics") and to include references to the Assistants Code of Conduct (2020) (hereinafter, "Code of Conduct"). The Board of Ethics (hereinafter, the "BOE") reviews Issues in Ethics statements periodically to ensure that they reflect current practices and the current Code of Ethics and/or Code of Conduct.
Issues in Ethics Statements: Definition
From time to time, the BOE determines that members, certificate holders, and certified assistants can benefit from additional analysis and instruction concerning a specific issue of ethical conduct. Issues in Ethics statements are intended to heighten sensitivity and increase awareness. They are illustrative of the Code of Ethics and/or the Code of Conduct, which collectively shall be referred to herein as the "Codes" and which are intended to promote thoughtful consideration of ethical issues. They may assist members, certificate holders, and certified assistants in engaging in self-guided, ethical decision making. These statements do not absolutely prohibit or require specified activity. The facts and circumstances surrounding a matter of concern will determine whether the activity is ethical.
Introduction
To protect the public and to assist members, certificate holders, and certified assistants in appreciating both the scope and limits of ethical responsibilities in their chosen profession, the ASHA Bylaws provide for the creation and maintenance of a published Code of Ethics. The Bylaws—specifically, Article VII, 7.3 Board of Ethics—also provide a means for holding members, certificate holders, and certified assistants accountable to the standards set out in the current Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct, as applicable.
Many members and/or certificate holders of ASHA hold licenses or certificates issued by a state licensure board or a teacher certification agency, allowing them to practice in that state. These boards or agencies may also require adherence to an ethical code or a code of conduct. Consequently, ASHA members, certificate holders, and certified assistants often come under the jurisdiction of separate and independent codes of professional conduct that, although generally similar in intent and in principle, may vary in their specific provisions, requirements, and prohibitions. It is the responsibility of professionals to familiarize themselves with all applicable codes and regulations.
The BOE only has jurisdiction over the following individuals:
- A member of ASHA holding the Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC)
- A member of ASHA not holding the CCC
- A nonmember of ASHA holding the CCC
- An applicant for certification, or for membership and certification
- An individual holding ASHA assistants certification
- An applicant for assistants certification
According to the Preamble of the Code of Ethics, "By holding ASHA certification and/or membership, or through application for such, all individuals are subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Ethics for ethics complaint adjudication."
Similarly, the Preamble of the Code of Conduct provides, “By holding ASHA assistants certification, or through application for such, all individuals are automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the ASHA Board of Ethics for Code of Conduct complaint adjudication.”
The BOE only has authority to determine whether individuals under its jurisdiction have violated either of the Codes. Likewise, each related state agency, regulatory body, or entity is responsible for determining whether its licensees or certificate holders follow its own particular regulations, laws, and rules.
Discussion
Although violation of a state or federal statute or regulation places an ASHA member, certificate holder, certified assistant, or applicants for certification in probable violation of the relevant Codes, violation of a code of ethics or a code of professional conduct of a state licensing board or another credentialing body by an ASHA member and/or certificate holder does not automatically constitute a sanctionable violation of the Codes. Each case brought before the BOE is judged on its own merits based on the evidence and its relevance to the applicable Codes.
The BOE does not have subpoena powers and does not conduct independent investigations into complaints. It considers information provided by the Complainant and the Respondent—as well as publicly available resources. These resources may include but are not limited to materials publicly available from any professional association, professional licensing authority or board, or other professional regulatory body as well as from any judicial body, court, or administrative law judge.
All complaints, responses, and related materials are considered strictly confidential and may be disclosed only in accordance with the Practices and Procedures of the Board of Ethics (2025) (hereinafter, "Practices and Procedures") in effect at the time the complaint was filed.
Principle of Ethics IV, Rule S of the Code of Ethics makes clear that "Individuals shall comply with local, state, and federal laws and regulations applicable to professional practice, research ethics, and the responsible conduct of research." Principle of Conduct I, Conduct Fundamental A of the Code of Conduct similarly states that “Assistants shall engage in only those activities delegated by the supervising audiologist or speech-language pathologist and permitted by local, state, or federal regulations.”
Likewise, as indicated in the Practices and Procedires, Section III(E)(2), the BOE "may consider state-issued documentation of professional discipline to be conclusive evidence of the commission of professional misconduct." In addition, "[c]ourt documentation of a criminal conviction shall be conclusive evidence of the commission that crime."
Violations of the Codes, however, do not automatically constitute a breach of the professional ethics of another agency. The conduct of an ASHA member, certificate holder, or certified assistant will be judged by other entities according to their own codes of ethics or conduct.
Several entities may adjudicate the same alleged offense, simultaneously or sequentially, and may arrive at varying—perhaps even conflicting—decisions. Similarly, the sanctions or penalties from the different entities with overlapping jurisdictions may run concurrently or independently. Such variations among the boards or councils concerning the seriousness of the offense or the significance of extenuating and mitigating circumstances may arise from differing principles within the relevant codes, differing investigative powers of the boards or councils, and/or differing burdens of proof required for the finding of a violation.
At the same time, the BOE may choose to dismiss a self-reported complaint at an Initial Consideration Hearing or at a Further Consideration Hearing due to Adequate Correction, which is listed in Section III(G)(3) of the Practices and Procedures. A dismissal for this reason means that the violation is being adequately addressed or has been adequately addressed by another decision-making body, such as a state licensing board or a court.
It is important to distinguish between (a) an individual’s legal right to practice in the state, typically designated by the state’s licensure or teacher certification, and (b) an individual’s ASHA membership and/or certification or assistants certification. A person may have their ASHA membership and/or certification suspended or revoked by the BOE, but may maintain the legal right to practice in the state. Moreover, a person may have their state license or state certification suspended or revoked by their state licensing board but may maintain ASHA membership and/or certification.
When the BOE finds a violation and issues a public sanction, it may share that final ruling with other appropriate entities. Specifically, the Practices and Procesures states in Section III(I)(3) that in cases where the final decision includes a public sanction—Censure, or the Withholding, Suspension, or Revocation of Membership and Certification—"the BOE may provide its Final Decision and any relevant case information to third parties as follows:
- any state agency providing a license to the Respondent, and/or to which the Respondent has applied for a license or other credential, and/or to any state agency located in the state where the Respondent resides or resided;
- any other professional organization that enforces a code of ethics or a code of professional conduct of which the Respondent is a member or to which the Respondent is an applicant for membership; and
- as required by law."
The BOE routinely publishes public sanctions in an ASHA publication that is distributed and available to all members. The BOE's "Written Warning" and "Reprimand" sanctions are disclosed only to the Respondent, Respondent's counsel (if applicable), Complainant(s) (if it is a Third-Party Complaint), and, when appropriate, to ASHA staff and legal counsel. The Complainant is advised that the decision is strictly confidential and that any breach of that confidentiality by the Complainant is, itself, a violation of the Code of Ethics or the Code of Conduct.
Like ASHA, many agencies and organizations with a code of ethics or code of professional conduct offer individuals a process for appeal of adverse decisions related to violations of their code. Potential differences in codes and processes (noted above) may lead to differences in the decisions of various agencies or organizations. This alone is not a reason for appeal to other entities.
Conclusion
As stated in the Practices and Procedures, "The BOE recognizes that each case must be judged on an individual basis and that no two cases are likely to be identical. Thus, the BOE has the responsibility to exercise its judgement based on the merits of each case and on its interpretation of the Codes."
When inquiries about the same individual are presented simultaneously or sequentially to ASHA and to a state licensing board, credentialing body, court, or regulatory group, the adjudicating entities will act independently, possibly issuing decisions that conflict in some manner. Each entity must evaluate the complaint specifically within the context of its own jurisdiction, procedures, and professional code of ethics or conduct.
Legal Disclaimer:
The information and materials available through ASHA’s website are for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this document should be construed as legal advice, and your use of the legal information provided on ASHA’s website is not a substitute for legal advice. ASHA has no knowledge of the specific or unique circumstances under which such information may be used by you. Your use of ASHA’s website does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and ASHA or between you and any of ASHA’s employees or representatives.
