Eugene L. Bass, Esq.
Registered Civil Engineer and Attorney at Law

A small business owner operating under the name of Radar Water Geophysics entered into a written contract with a landowner to provide a computer profile of subsurface conditions and to locate groundwater on the client's property. The business owner, who was not a licensed geophysicist, had never studied geophysics and was not working under a licensed geophysicist, advertised his business on a Web site which represented that he specialized in "aquifer location" and used "electronic techniques for analysis of groundwater resources" to "identify the aquifer's geologic characteristics . . . ."

The Board for Geologists and Geophysicists of the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs cited the business owner under provisions of the Business and Professions Code for practicing or offering to practice geophysics for others in violation of the code and ordered him to pay a $2,500 fine. The company was also ordered to stop violating the Business and Professions code.

The business owner sued and the case eventually was heard by the California Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sustained the decision of the administrative agency and lower courts, holding that the business had to be licensed.

At the administrative hearing of the case, the business owner testified that he did not believe that he had done anything wrong in his business. He claimed he performed only non-professional services for his customers and such services were exempt from the laws requiring a license to practice geophysics. There was, however, expert testimony clearly demonstrating that the business was engaged in the unlicensed practice of geophysics. The Court also noted that such unlicensed practice was a threat to the public, particularly in light of the fact that the business owner did not have the training or education required for licensure.

During the administrative hearing, the business owner admitted that he had never been licensed as a geophysicist, geologist or hydrogeologist, and that he had never taken a college course in geophysics, geology or hydrogeology. In addition, he was not working under a licensed geologist when he performed his services and had never worked under a licensed geophysicist, geologist or hydrogeologist.

At the administrative hearing it was demonstrated that the business had offered geophysical services to the public. In its web site, the company stated that it specialized in aquifer location. Expert testimony established that someone specializing in aquifer location would be required to be a geologist or geophysicist, and would have to interpret the geology of a site to perform the function. As to the claim that the company used "...electronic techniques for analysis of groundwater resources to identify the aquifers geologic characteristics that indicate a better drilling target...," the expert testified that the analysis of the groundwater resources by remote methods was geophysics, and therefore in order to perform geophysics for others, one had to be a geophysicist.

The company had been in business for 11 years and one would assume it was properly licensed. It was not and it suffered disastrous consequences.

The author’s discussion of legal ramifications of the particular case(s) are provided only for educational purposes and should not be relied on as legal advice. If you have a specific legal problem, please consult with your attorney.