Supreme Court of Nebraska

Case no.: S-25-002
Date filed: July 2, 2026

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that an architect’s five-year ban from practice was justified. The architect had submitted false continuing education documents. This is related to both the public interest and the architect’s competency.

Nebraska’s Board of Engineers and Architects conducted a random audit of license renewal applications for compliance with continuing education requirements. Tobias S. Gay, a licensed architect, submitted a log listing 19 web-based courses, along with 19 unsigned certificates of completion.

Gay’s attendance records indicated that he had overstated his attendance. The board pressed for signed certificates of completion. Gay provided 19certificates with the course sponsor’s wet signature on each. The sponsor later stated that these signatures were forgeries.

The board filed a petition for disciplinary action and notice of hearing. Gay chose to represent himself at the administrative hearing. He admitted to a “terrible mistake in judgment” and apologized to the board. After a hearing, at which Gay declined to cross-examine the board’s compliance officer, the board found that Gay had falsified and forged continuing education documents. The board revoked Gay’s license to practice architecture, and Gay was ineligible to apply for re-licensing for five years.

Gay, now represented by counsel, challenged the five-year revocation in court. Gay argued the administrative hearing had not afforded him constitutional due process. He also contended that the penalty was excessive for an administrative violation unrelated to the practice of architecture. The matter eventually went all the way to the state’s highest court.

The Supreme Court of Nebraska said Gay had been afforded the procedural due process guaranteed by the United States and Nebraska Constitutions.

“In proceedings before an administrative agency or tribunal, procedural due process requires notice, identification of the accuser, factual basis for the accusation, reasonable time and opportunity to present evidence concerning the accusation, and a hearing before an impartial board. . . . [W]e cannot conclude that the due process afforded Gay was inappropriate to the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights affected by it.”

The court did not find the penalty's severity to be inappropriate. This involved more than Gay’s mishandling of administrative matters.

“Not only did he submit fraudulent paperwork once, but when the fraud was discovered, he then chose to submit additional fraudulent paperwork. Gay has admitted these factual allegations and conceded that the evidence speaks for itself. . . . We disagree with Gay’s argument that dishonesty, particularly about matters concerning continuing education, is unrelated to his professional work, does not affect the public, and does not bear on his competency. Like the evidence in this case, the egregiousness of Gay’s violations speaks for itself. The Legislature has provided that licensure requires, in part, ‘compliance with laws, professional conduct, and good ethical character standards.’”

One judge concurred with the ruling that the board's notification of the hearing satisfied the minimum due process standards. The judge, however, suggested that the state administrative code could be amended to require that the notice include information on the rights and procedures applicable to the hearing.

Many professionals consider continuing education requirements an annoying administrative matter. Yet compliance with the requirements is fundamental to maintaining licensure.

Participants:
For Tobias Gay: Clark J. Grant
For the board: Michael T. Hilgers
Before: Judges Funke, Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, Bergevin, and Vaughn
Opinion by: The full court
Outcome: Disciplinary action against the architect affirmed

Source: Please click here to read the complete opinion.