Professional regulatory bodies, including ethics committees and association boards, as well as government licensing authorities, oversee the ethical behaviour of health care professionals, and specifically monitoring their use of power. There is, however, relatively less scrutiny regarding the use of power by such regulatory bodies in the consideration of grievances against professionals. The quasi-legal nature of the administration of justice is explored and questioned, and significant limitations in the implementation of administrative law are addressed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Key words: regulatory bodies; regulation; ethics; power; due process; natural justice; administrative law PROLOGUEInterest in a topic is always generated out of a personal context. Twenty years ago I was a cofounder of a psychotherapy organisation. Initially this was a collegial project which involved breaking new ground, and finding our way through historical feuds and theoretical differences. I was pleased at how successfully we were able to do this, and our field was strengthened as a result. However, over the years, I observed -and was finally subject toa seemingly inexorable politicisation of differences and the increasing use of power to silence opposition. I saw this played out in a number of venues including the operation of ethics investigations. I found little interest in my concerns, and an odd sort of blindness which I somehow did not expect on the part of experienced therapists. This echoed my own naivety about the possibilities of cooperation, the administration of even-handed fairness, and the benefits of regulation. In the end I came to recognise that the skills and ideals of interpersonal communication which are championed by the field of psychotherapy are not enough when it comes to the exercise of power. In fact, as Nevis and Backman (2003) pointed out, the valuing of intimate skills may be accompanied by a devaluing of the place of strategic skills. Here I examine the effects of the poor use of power by regulatory bodies, identifying the ways this occurs, in the hope that it may provide the ground for change.

Professional regulatory bodies, including ethics committees, association boards, and government licensing authorities, oversee the ethical behaviour of professionals, specifically monitoring their use of power. A key element of such regulation is the hearing of ethics complaints against practitioners. This generally involves adversarial type processes which attempt to echo the legal system. The use of these adversarial models of investigation and discipline is called into question here and other possibilities are outlined.

The power differential between practitioner and client is examined by reviewing empirical studies, professional practice frameworks and related legal and procedural questions, in the context of complaints about health professionals. Professional regulatory bodiesincluding ethics committees, association boards, and government licensing authoritiesoversee the ethical behaviour of professionals, specifically monitoring their use of power. Complaints which these regulatory bodies address are generally framed in terms of the way that power is used poorly or harmfully by a practitioner. Alleged ethical breaches are usually evaluated from a specific epistemological premisethe existence of a power incline between practitioner and client. We explore some alternative perspectives regarding the power that clients hold, in the process exposing assumptions about the question of harm done. Linear views of causality and responsibility are questioned, and it is suggested that a more complex understanding would better serve investigatory processes. This discussion does not delve into the psycho-dynamics underlying the complaints process, but rather addresses the operation of regulatory bodies in terms of perceptions of power differences in the professional relationship.