Because most of the time at the end of the day it likely won't help and likely will hurt ultimately. Medicine in particular is an obscure type of field where it's so complex that it's almost undetangeable to the outside world. Look up all the cases of residents who have sued - and you will see most have lost. I'm not saying that inappropriate things don't happen in medicine - they do all the time sadly. But because so much is subjective in medicine most of the time it wont make a difference and it will likely increase the tension. There have been multiple cases - take a look for example at Maria Artunduaga who s ued U of C - years of litigation for her to lose andhave to pay the university's fees. There have been numerous others. Why? Because at the end of the day it's almost impossible if a program wants you out to contradict and refute the "thoughts" or "subjective feeling" that an attending, etc has about a resident.
Think of it this way - resident gets put on probation - just or not. IF the program says you are out because we dont feel you are clinically appropirate, patient safety concern, etc - it can be argued a trillion ways but at the end of the day the program will win - because a court, etc has no way to truly contradict this. Is a court going to say no resident so and so is competent, we are going to ignore all the experienced physicians and refute what they say? no. Also again realize that lawyers have no power - only a judge determines an outcome. And a judge will always rule on the side of patient safety/care etc. Is it fair? not necessarily. Are residents who shouldn't be thrown out thrown out at times? yes.
At the end of the day OP can do what they feel is right. In my view getting a lawyer generally wont help things and likelyw ill hurt things.
This is bordering on irrational fear mongering and I just don't see the basis. I have given concrete examples of the way representation can help a physician with a board or their employer.
I think the cases you cite where residents brought cases and it went badly for them, do not in any way represent the bulk of the work attorneys do in representing physicians to the board or their employers. I am basing this on the fact that from what I can tell just about every state has at least one law firm that seems totally dedicated to representing physicians outside of malpractice issues. I also always see advice from attendings to get an attorney when signing any employment or practice contract and have it reviewed. I don't know why one would only consult proactively and not after issues with employment arise.
It's standard for physicians to get representation in dealing with malpractice, and it isn't odd in any way for most employees of this country to also get representation when having issues with a boss or regulatory body.
But sure, say to all these law firms that make a living year after year specializing in representing physicians in this way to boards or employers, that they have no idea how to detangle the relevant laws. That's just a load of crap.
Residents and programs are somewhat of an outlier here, yes, that part is true. But NOT in being represented to the board. There are enough attending physicians dealing with the board for attorneys who do this routinely. Those same ones can be, and should be, tapped by residents dealing with a board.
I think the outlier cases involving physicians are these resident cases with their programs. Likely an inexperienced attorney and an overly litigious resident that is acting emotionally and doesn't really understand what they could actually hope to attain realistically, and that is where a forum like SDN can do a lot to recalibrate their expectations if they're willing to listen to reason and experience their attorney may not have.
I don't see anyone here suggesting that an attorney is going to help a resident stay at a program that wants them gone, or even get a license a board doesn't want to grant. That's a far cry to saying the attorney has no utility.
It may be worth the $ to some residents (and it is actually a drop in the bucket compared to all their loans) to possibly have the peace of mind to know that they got everything they could reasonably have negotiated for, and that they didn't make it overly easy for a program to be sloppy in terminating them. Make them cross the is and ts. Doesn't mean it has to devolve into making the situation worse.
Couple this with the fact that your attorney in your corner doesn't even have to be known to the program until things are so far gone between you that it's very difficult to really make the relationship any more of a non-starter than it already is. And it all depends on how you personally handle the whole thing start to end and how you handle your attorney.
Admittedly some of these residents failing out in the professional sphere may not be well equipped on a personal level to handle the situation overall. That's different than acting like attorneys don't do this kind of work, or like just the act of getting an attorney sours things with the board (extremely false), or a hospital HR. Programs may be more sensitive to it.
I mean, you're making decent points about how not to use an attorney, but it's a little baby with the bathwater to try to generalize to saying a resident shouldn't get one as a matter of course. I think it would be the exception not the rule not to even consult with one in many cases.
And in any case your point that attorneys can't help when I know several that are old hat at this, deserves refutation for being 100% demonstrably untrue.
You say that you're basing this on well known residents cases gone bad. I can think of why those cases are the ones you hear about. But the nature of cases settled out of court, and very common issues between board and physicians are such that you wouldn't.
I'm also curious if you personally know physicians that have experience being represented by attorneys to the board or to their programs, or how you are coming to the generalized conclusion that simply seeking the private counsel of an attorney is this major danger step.
Lastly, we didn't touch on at all that a very common situation that causes tensions between physicians and their employers/the board, often involves concerns about physical/mental health/substance use, and also other not terribly uncommon criminal issues (DUI is one that comes to mind, but other legal missteps are made by docs not hugely uncommonly). It is very common, and well-advised enough, that in such cases a physician absolutely consult an attorney. These issues are often a factor for residents falling out of favor as well.
The idea that a physician in any situation should just prostrate themselves before any regulatory body or employer to purposefully leave themselves at the tender mercies one may beg of them, to the point of not even consulting an attorney with relevant experience, so awful that I will fight the very idea with every fiber of my being. It is awful. It is possible to go wrong with an attorney, but not for the simple fact you consulted or were represented by one.
