Disclaimer and Disclosure: This article is an opinion piece for informational purposes only. Digital Journal and its affiliates do not take responsibility for the views expressed. Readers should conduct independent research to form their own opinions.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping professional industries, from finance to medicine to law. While AI-driven tools have improved efficiency in many areas, they are increasingly being used by regulatory boards to assess professional competency, monitor compliance, and even determine disciplinary actions. However, the use of AI in professional licensing and discipline introduces significant risks, including algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, and the erosion of due process.
As AI plays a growing role in automated investigations, malpractice assessments, and licensing exams, professionals must navigate an evolving landscape where machines—not humans—are often making career-altering decisions.
AI is now used to score professional licensing exams, assess applications, and determine eligibility for licensure, but these systems are far from perfect. Professional exams in law, medicine, and finance are increasingly being graded using AI, raising concerns about fairness and transparency. Many AI models lack the ability to consider context or nuance, meaning that well-qualified applicants may be unfairly penalized by rigid scoring algorithms.
Studies have shown that AI-based hiring and credentialing tools can exhibit racial and gender biases, disproportionately denying licenses to minority applicants. Since AI models are trained on historical data, they may perpetuate systemic inequalities already present in professional industries.
“Professionals who believe they’ve been unfairly denied licensure due to AI decisions should pursue legal recourse, including administrative appeals and potential litigation,” says Joseph Lento. “Regulatory bodies must be held accountable for ensuring these systems are transparent and free from bias.”
Regulatory boards are increasingly relying on AI to flag potential misconduct — but these tools are not always accurate, and their growing influence raises serious due process concerns. AI-powered surveillance tools are now being used to monitor doctors, lawyers, and financial professionals for potential violations, often flagging innocent professionals for review. Furthermore, financial advisors and attorneys have been investigated based on AI models detecting “suspicious” patterns in financial transactions or legal case outcomes — even when no wrongdoing occurred.
In some cases, AI-generated evidence is being used to justify disciplinary hearings, suspensions, and even license revocations. Professionals often have no access to the AI models or data that led to their investigation, making it difficult to challenge or appeal disciplinary actions.
“When professionals face AI-driven disciplinary actions, they must demand transparency and access to the underlying data,” says Lento. “Legal challenges can focus on due process violations, bias in AI models, and the failure to provide meaningful opportunities for defense.”
Many licensed professionals — particularly those in finance, law, and healthcare — are now subject to AI-driven compliance tracking that constantly monitors their professional activities. Employers and licensing boards are often tracking emails, messages, billing records, and case files using AI to flag potential violations. Financial professionals and healthcare workers have also been disciplined based on AI-generated risk scores, often without a clear explanation of how those scores were calculated.
However, AI models lack human judgment, meaning they cannot consider context, intent, or mitigating factors before flagging a potential violation. As such, some professionals are now self-censoring their professional communications to avoid being misinterpreted by AI monitoring systems.
“AI should be a tool, not a substitute for human judgment,” says Lento. “Regulatory bodies must implement safeguards that ensure AI-generated alerts are reviewed by experienced professionals who can assess context and intent before disciplinary actions are taken.”
Moving forward, the increasing use of AI in professional licensing and discipline introduces both opportunities and risks. While automation can streamline regulatory processes, it also creates new legal challenges, particularly when professionals are disciplined or denied licensure based on opaque, AI-generated decisions.
As AI continues to play a greater role in credentialing, compliance, and oversight, professionals must be proactive in understanding how these systems work, knowing their rights, and challenging unfair AI-driven rulings. Ensuring that AI does not replace human judgment in regulatory decisions will be a critical issue for the future of licensing and professional discipline.
