There are strong arguments against the requirement of licensure for a great many occupations where the public may be at risk of harm but the requirement of a license serves more to preclude entry into the position than to save anyone from a dangerous charlatan. But does that apply to professionals, where the testing of educational and experiential requirements serve to provide some modicum of assurance that these people know what they’re doing?
And if a license is required, can someone testify in court as an expert even though he has no license? Eastern District of North Carolina Judge Richard Myers in Nutt v. Ritter held that he can. Continue reading
