TREC disciplinary grounds under Texas Occupations Code § 1101.652
Texas Occupations Code § 1101.652 enumerates the grounds on which the Texas Real Estate Commission may suspend or revoke a sales agent or broker license — procurement by fraud, moral turpitude, felony fraud conviction, dishonest dealing, and an enumerated list of trade-practice violations under § 1101.652(b).
- Procurement of a license by fraud — § 1101.652(a)(1)
- Misrepresentation or material omission on the original or renewal application — undisclosed criminal history, false employment claims, unreported civil judgments for fraud, or undisclosed prior license discipline. The fraud element does not require intent to defraud TREC specifically; intent to mislead the licensing authority on a material fact suffices. Renewal applications are an underappreciated exposure vector — most agents complete renewals as administrative formalities and overlook the same criminal-history disclosure questions that the original application required.
- Felony conviction in a crime in which fraud is an essential element — § 1101.652(a)(2)
- A mandatory revocation or denial ground. The relevant question is not whether the offense was technically a felony but whether fraud is an essential element of the statute of conviction — wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), bank fraud (§ 1344), false statement to a federal financial institution (§ 1014), Texas theft by deception (§ 31.03(b)(1)), and securities fraud (Tex. Sec. Act § 32) all qualify. Conviction of a fraud felony triggers automatic license loss; the licensee's remaining avenue is collateral attack on the underlying conviction or post-revocation reinstatement under § 1101.658.
- Conduct involving moral turpitude — § 1101.652(b)(7)
- A discretionary ground reaching offenses not necessarily including fraud as an element but involving dishonesty, fraud, or base, vile, or depraved conduct. Texas case law on moral turpitude in occupational-licensing contexts includes theft offenses generally, prostitution-related offenses, certain assault offenses against vulnerable victims, and offenses involving deception or false statements. The Texas Supreme Court's framework in Diehl v. Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, 421 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, pet. denied), continues to inform the moral-turpitude inquiry in occupational licensing.
- Dishonest dealing — § 1101.652(b)(2)
- A broad discretionary ground reaching conduct in real estate transactions that falls short of criminal fraud but involves material misrepresentation, concealment, or breach of fiduciary duty to a principal. Common examples include undisclosed dual representation, misrepresentation of property condition, false-advertising violations, undisclosed referral relationships, and breach of duty to disclose known material defects. The element does not require completed transaction harm; the dishonest-dealing element is satisfied by the conduct itself, even where no client suffered measurable loss.
The structural simplicity of § 1101.652 — one statute, a mandatory-action subsection (a), and a discretionary-action subsection (b) — disguises the analytical depth of every TREC disciplinary matter. Almost every contested case turns on the characterization of the underlying conduct against the statutory categories. Is the felony conviction one in which fraud is an essential element, or merely one involving deception in some sense? Is the trade-practice violation a § 1101.652(a) mandatory ground or a § 1101.652(b) discretionary ground? Is the moral-turpitude inquiry governed by an objective analysis of the elements of the offense or by the licensee's actual conduct in the specific transaction? Each of these is a fact-bound determination that gives the defense room to argue for dismissal, lesser discipline, or probationary licensure rather than outright revocation.
TREC discipline is also the most important professional consequence of a fraud-related criminal disposition for any Texas real estate agent or broker. When the State indicts an agent or broker on a federal wire-fraud, bank-fraud, mortgage-fraud, securities, or theft-by-deception charge, the licensee faces parallel proceedings — the criminal docket in the original jurisdiction and the administrative docket before TREC and SOAH. Many cases that resolve at plea in the criminal proceeding produce automatic TREC revocation under § 1101.652(a)(2); strategic positioning on the criminal-charge structure therefore begins long before plea negotiations and continues through the disposition of the administrative docket. The criminal and administrative defenses must coordinate from the first 30 days of representation, because charging decisions made in the criminal case bind the administrative outcome in ways that the licensee's separate criminal counsel often does not appreciate.
The Fitness Determination process for criminal-history applicants
Applicants with criminal history, civil fraud judgments, or prior license discipline can request a Fitness Determination under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.53 — a pre-application advisory ruling on whether the background would disqualify the applicant from licensure.
The Texas Real Estate Commission's Fitness Determination procedure under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.53 is the principal pre-application mechanism available to a Texas resident with a criminal history who is considering pursuing a real estate sales agent or broker license. The process is technically optional — an applicant may simply file a regular license application and let TREC adjudicate the moral-character determination on the back end — but the practical reality is that the Fitness Determination protects the applicant's up-front investment in 180 hours of pre-license qualifying education, examination fees, and sponsorship arrangements. An applicant who completes pre-license coursework, sits the exam, and is then denied on moral-character grounds at the application stage loses the entire investment with no refund mechanism.
Submission requires the Fitness Determination form (REI 7-7), a $50 application fee, certified copies of all relevant criminal records, civil fraud judgment records, prior license discipline orders, and a written narrative explaining the circumstances of each disclosed event and the applicant's rehabilitation. TREC's Standards and Enforcement Services division reviews the submission and issues a written determination — favorable (the disclosed history would not disqualify), unfavorable (the disclosed history would disqualify), or conditional (the disclosed history would disqualify absent specified remediation). The determination is binding in practice; TREC does not revisit a favorable determination on the later application absent newly-disclosed information.
The defense work in the Fitness Determination context centers on the narrative submission. TREC's § 1101.652 analysis turns on moral character, and TREC's practical adjudicators look for evidence of rehabilitation, time elapsed since the disqualifying event, full accountability for the conduct, and absence of recurrence. A well-developed narrative submission addresses each statutory criterion explicitly — the nature and seriousness of the offense, the time elapsed since the offense, the conduct and life circumstances since the offense, and any other evidence of rehabilitation. Letters of recommendation from supervisors, treatment providers, religious leaders, and community organizations carry weight. Documentation of completion of probation, community service, restitution, and any required treatment programs is essential.
TREC has discretion to grant Fitness Determinations conditionally — typically requiring additional probationary monitoring, mandatory supervisory oversight by a sponsoring broker, or completion of additional ethics or trust-account education. A conditional Fitness Determination is materially better than an unfavorable determination but worse than an unrestricted favorable determination, because the conditional terms become part of the eventual license and trigger separate compliance obligations that, if breached, can produce later § 1101.652 discipline. The defense work on a conditional Fitness Determination includes negotiating the precise conditions before TREC issues the order — the difference between "annual quarterly reporting to TREC" and "Fitness Determination favorable without conditions" represents years of administrative friction over the licensee's career.
TREC Investigation Division and SOAH contested-case procedure
TREC disciplinary procedure runs from Investigation Division intake through Standards and Enforcement Services review to formal SOAH contested-case hearing before an administrative law judge — three distinct stages, each with separate defense strategies and procedural deadlines.
Texas Real Estate Commission disciplinary proceedings follow a structured three-stage administrative process governed by Texas Occupations Code ch. 1101, 22 Tex. Admin. Code ch. 535, and the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (Texas Government Code ch. 2001). The first stage is Investigation Division intake — a complaint is filed (by a consumer, by a fellow licensee, by another agency, or sua sponte by TREC), the file is opened, and an investigator interviews witnesses, requests documents, and develops the factual record. The licensee receives notice of the complaint and is invited to submit a written response. The investigation file is confidential during the pendency of the matter under Texas Occupations Code § 1101.461; the licensee's response and supporting documentation are the principal vehicle for shaping the investigator's factual findings.
The second stage is Standards and Enforcement Services review. The investigator transmits the completed file to Standards and Enforcement Services, which reviews the evidence, makes a charging recommendation, and issues a proposed disposition. The proposed disposition takes one of three forms: closure (no violation found), informal disposition (typically a reprimand, fine, or probationary license with specified conditions), or formal complaint (referring the matter to SOAH for contested-case adjudication). The licensee has the right to accept informal disposition or to reject it and proceed to the contested-case hearing. Acceptance of informal disposition does not require admission of the underlying conduct but does create a permanent public-record disciplinary action subject to NMLS cross-licensing reporting under § 5104.
The third stage is SOAH contested-case adjudication under Texas Government Code ch. 2001. The State Office of Administrative Hearings is an independent state agency that hears contested cases for over 60 different Texas regulatory agencies, including TREC. The case is assigned to an administrative law judge who conducts a formal adversarial hearing with discovery, witness examination, exhibits, and post-hearing briefing. The ALJ issues a Proposal for Decision recommending findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a sanction. TREC, sitting as the final decision-maker, adopts, modifies, or rejects the Proposal for Decision and issues the final order. The licensee's appellate remedy is to file a motion for rehearing followed by judicial review in district court under Government Code § 2001.171.
The procedural strategy across the three stages is distinct at each step. At Investigation Division intake, the goal is to develop a complete factual record favorable to the licensee — written narrative response, supporting documentation, witness affidavits, and any evidence of rehabilitation, mitigation, or innocent explanation. At Standards and Enforcement Services, the goal is to negotiate a favorable informal disposition that minimizes the public-record disciplinary action — often a reprimand or fine rather than a license suspension or revocation. At SOAH, the goal shifts to formal adversarial litigation — cross-examination of the TREC investigator and complainant, presentation of affirmative defense witnesses, evidentiary motions on documentary admissibility, and post-hearing legal briefing on the application of § 1101.652 to the proven facts. The defense investment at each stage scales with the consequence of failure; minor cases resolve at Investigation Division stage, complex high-stakes cases proceed to SOAH adjudication and judicial review.
Mortgage fraud and the federal crossover for Texas real estate licensees
The most frequent fact pattern producing TREC discipline among Texas real estate licensees is federal mortgage-fraud crossover — straw-purchaser schemes, inflated-appraisal arrangements, occupancy-fraud misrepresentations, and undisclosed-flip transactions that trigger 18 U.S.C. § 1014 false-statement liability.
Federal mortgage fraud is the most frequent fact pattern producing TREC discipline among active Texas real estate licensees because the underlying conduct — misrepresentation in a federally-related mortgage transaction — simultaneously triggers § 1101.652(a)(2) mandatory revocation grounds (felony fraud conviction) and the broader § 1101.652(b) discretionary grounds (dishonest dealing, moral turpitude). The federal statutory framework includes 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (false statement to a federally-insured financial institution), § 1343 (wire fraud), § 1344 (bank fraud), § 1010 (HUD/FHA-related fraud), and § 1956/§ 1957 (money laundering when the proceeds are routed through the licensee's escrow or trust accounts). Each of these statutes establishes felony liability with maximum sentences ranging from 30 years (bank fraud) to 20 years (wire fraud) plus restitution.
The recurring transactional patterns include straw-purchaser schemes where the licensee facilitates a sale to a nominal buyer who is not the true beneficial owner of the property; inflated-appraisal arrangements where the licensee coordinates with the appraiser to support a fraudulent loan-to-value ratio; occupancy-fraud misrepresentations where the licensee submits owner-occupied loan applications for properties actually intended as investment rentals (which carry higher interest rates); and undisclosed-flip transactions where the licensee facilitates a same-day or near-same-day resale at an inflated price using fraudulent loan documentation. Each pattern produces both criminal and TREC exposure, and the federal criminal investigation typically precedes the TREC disciplinary docket — TREC discipline often follows the federal indictment by months, with the disciplinary outcome largely determined by the criminal disposition.
The defense coordination across criminal and administrative dockets is essential. Plea decisions in the federal criminal case bind the TREC administrative outcome in two ways: first, a felony conviction in a crime in which fraud is an essential element automatically triggers § 1101.652(a)(2) mandatory revocation; second, the factual record developed in the criminal proceeding becomes the evidentiary foundation for the TREC contested-case hearing through collateral-estoppel principles under Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 and Texas decisions including Sysco Food Services v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994). A plea agreement that strategically structures the criminal disposition to avoid the "fraud as essential element" trigger — by pleading to a non-fraud-element offense or by reaching a deferred-prosecution agreement — can preserve the licensee's ability to defend against TREC revocation under the broader § 1101.652(b) discretionary grounds.
NMLS cross-licensing reporting under 12 U.S.C. § 5104 amplifies every TREC disciplinary outcome for licensees who hold concurrent Texas residential mortgage loan originator, mortgage broker, or mortgage banker licenses through the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System. Any adverse TREC action — even a simple reprimand or fine — must be disclosed to NMLS within 30 days. The downstream effect is typically immediate revocation of the mortgage license, because federally-related mortgage lenders disqualify NMLS registrants with adverse-action history under counterparty-risk standards. A licensee who holds both a TREC sales agent license and an NMLS mortgage originator license therefore faces compounded exposure: a TREC reprimand that would be tolerable as a standalone real-estate consequence may produce automatic dual-license loss when the NMLS cross-licensing reporting requirement triggers. The defense work coordinates strategically across both regulatory regimes from the first response to the underlying TREC complaint.
Escrow and trust-fund commingling under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.146
Texas brokers and sales agents who hold client trust funds — earnest money, security deposits, and option fees — must maintain separate trust accounts under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.146. Commingling or conversion produces both TREC discipline and parallel theft-by-conversion criminal exposure under Texas Penal Code § 31.03.
The Texas Real Estate Commission's trust-account rules under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.146 establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for the handling of client funds that real estate licensees receive in connection with real estate transactions — earnest money deposits, option fees, security deposits on managed properties, and unearned commissions held pending closing. The rules require that trust funds be deposited in a separate trust account (designated as such on the bank records), that the trust account be maintained at a Texas-chartered or federally-chartered financial institution, that the licensee maintain detailed ledger records reconciling individual client deposits against the consolidated trust-account balance, and that disbursements be made only upon authorized written instruction from the client or pursuant to the written terms of the listing or sales agreement.
Commingling — the deposit of client trust funds into the licensee's personal or operating account, or the deposit of personal or operating funds into the trust account — is a per se § 1101.652(b)(8) trade-practice violation regardless of whether any client suffered actual loss. The TREC investigator's standard audit procedure on a trust-account complaint includes a bank-statement review for the trust account and for the licensee's operating and personal accounts, a ledger reconciliation against deposits and disbursements, and witness interviews with all clients whose funds passed through the account during the audit period. A simple bookkeeping commingling — where the licensee inadvertently deposits a personal check into the trust account or makes a personal disbursement from it — produces TREC discipline even where the underlying client funds were never at risk.
Conversion — the unauthorized use of client trust funds for the licensee's personal or business purposes — is the more serious tier of trust-account violation and produces compounded exposure across regulatory and criminal dockets. The conduct is simultaneously a TREC § 1101.652 violation (mandatory revocation under the moral-turpitude and dishonest-dealing grounds), a Texas Penal Code § 31.03 theft offense (graded by the amount converted under § 31.03(e), running from Class B misdemeanor up to first-degree felony), and a potential federal wire-fraud violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 where the trust account or the underlying transaction involved interstate financial flows. The federal-state-administrative triple-docket exposure produces the most aggressive prosecutions in TREC enforcement history.
TREC E&O insurance disclosure obligations under 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.91 require that licensees with errors-and-omissions coverage disclose pending or threatened claims to their carrier within the policy's notice period — typically 30-60 days from the licensee's awareness of the claim. Late notice produces coverage denial under standard E&O policy terms and leaves the licensee personally exposed for any resulting civil judgment. The TREC disciplinary docket frequently triggers parallel E&O claims from clients seeking recovery, and the disciplinary defense must coordinate with E&O defense counsel from the earliest stage of the case. Insurance carrier counsel and TREC defense counsel work the same factual record but pursue different strategic objectives — the carrier seeks to minimize the civil exposure, the TREC defense seeks to minimize the disciplinary exposure, and the two objectives can diverge in ways that require careful client communication and informed-consent waivers.
Broker supervisory liability under § 1101.654
A Texas real estate broker faces independent disciplinary exposure under § 1101.654 for failure to supervise sponsored sales agents — a broker can lose her license for a single sponsored agent's § 1101.652 violation, even where the broker had no direct involvement in the underlying conduct.
Texas Occupations Code § 1101.654 establishes broker supervisory liability — an independent disciplinary basis applied to a Texas real estate broker for the acts of sponsored sales agents and broker-associates operating under the broker's sponsorship. The doctrine reaches a broker who fails to maintain reasonable supervision over sponsored agents, who knew or should have known of agent misconduct, or who failed to remedy known compliance failures. Section 1101.654(b) authorizes TREC to suspend or revoke the broker's license for failure to maintain reasonable supervision. The doctrine extends across the entire sponsored brokerage — a broker can lose her license for a single sponsored agent's § 1101.652 violation even where the broker had no direct involvement in the underlying conduct.
The reasonable-supervision standard under § 1101.654 is not strict liability — TREC must establish that the broker's supervisory practices fell below a reasonable standard. The 22 Tex. Admin. Code § 535.2 rules elaborate the supervisory expectations: broker must maintain written policies and procedures, must conduct ongoing supervision sufficient to ensure agent compliance with the Real Estate License Act, must review and approve all listings and contracts, must maintain training and continuing education programs for sponsored agents, and must respond promptly to complaints or compliance concerns. A broker who can demonstrate compliance with each of these supervisory expectations through documented written records — policy manuals, training logs, listing-review records, complaint-handling files — defeats the § 1101.654 case even where a sponsored agent independently committed a violation.
The brokerage entity license under Texas Occupations Code § 1101.355 adds another layer of complexity. A Texas real estate business entity (LLC, corporation, partnership) requires its own broker license issued through a designated broker — an individual broker who assumes regulatory responsibility for the entity's operations. The designated broker's § 1101.654 supervisory liability extends not only to sponsored individual agents but to the entity's overall compliance with the Real Estate License Act. A designated broker for a large brokerage with dozens of sponsored agents faces materially greater exposure than a sole-practitioner broker — the volume of sponsored agents multiplies the supervisory burden, and any single agent's violation can become the designated broker's § 1101.654 case.
Defense strategy for a broker facing § 1101.654 discipline focuses on documentation of supervisory practices and proximate-cause analysis. The broker's contemporaneous written records — policy manuals dated before the sponsored agent's violation, training logs showing the agent's participation in compliance education, listing-review records showing the broker's actual review of the agent's transactions, complaint-response files showing the broker's prompt action on compliance concerns — defeat the case where they show actual reasonable supervision. Where documentation is incomplete or absent, the defense pivots to proximate-cause arguments: the sponsored agent's violation occurred outside the supervisory chain (off-the-books transactions, falsified documentation that the broker could not reasonably have detected, conduct outside the scope of sponsored activity). Both defense strategies require coordinated work between the broker and the sponsored agent — the agent's defense work in his own § 1101.652 case generates the factual record that the broker's § 1101.654 defense draws upon.
NMLS cross-licensing and collateral consequences across regulatory regimes
A TREC disciplinary action triggers mandatory reporting to the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System under 12 U.S.C. § 5104 — making the discipline visible to every state regulator the licensee operates in and to consumers via NMLS Consumer Access. Downstream license consequences typically follow within 90 days.
The Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) cross-licensing infrastructure transforms a Texas Real Estate Commission disciplinary action into a permanent multi-state regulatory record visible to every state in which the licensee holds or seeks any financial-services license. The SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. and implemented in Texas through Finance Code ch. 157 and ch. 156, mandates that NMLS registrants — Texas residential mortgage loan originators, mortgage brokers, mortgage bankers, and certain other regulated entities — disclose adverse regulatory action by any state licensing authority within 30 days of the underlying action. The disclosure becomes a permanent public-record entry on the registrant's NMLS profile, accessible to all state regulators and to consumers through NMLS Consumer Access at nmlsconsumeraccess.org.
The downstream effect for a Texas real estate licensee who also holds an NMLS mortgage license is typically immediate revocation of the mortgage license — often within 60-90 days of the TREC disciplinary action — because federally-related mortgage lenders impose counterparty-risk standards that disqualify NMLS registrants with adverse-action history. Even where the underlying TREC discipline is a minor reprimand or modest fine that would otherwise be tolerable as a standalone consequence, the cascading NMLS effect can produce dual-license loss and exclusion from federally-related mortgage origination practice. The licensee's practice income from mortgage origination evaporates immediately upon NMLS reporting, even before the formal mortgage-license revocation takes effect.
Other Texas occupational-licensing regimes apply parallel cross-reporting and good-character review when a TREC disciplinary action becomes public. Texas Department of Banking, Texas State Securities Board, Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and Texas State Board of Insurance all conduct background reviews on applicants and renewals that include verification against state licensing-authority disciplinary databases. A TREC disciplinary record creates a presumption of unfitness in each parallel regulatory regime that the licensee must affirmatively rebut. Texas attorneys facing State Bar grievance proceedings face analogous review when TREC discipline shows in their character-and-fitness records.
Federal regulatory consequences extend beyond NMLS. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development maintains its Limited Denial of Participation list under 24 C.F.R. part 24, disqualifying parties from participation in HUD-financed transactions where the party has engaged in conduct demonstrating a lack of business integrity. A TREC disciplinary action for fraud-related conduct frequently triggers HUD LDP listing within 6-12 months, foreclosing FHA-financed transactions, HUD-related management contracts, and certain federally-subsidized housing transactions. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Section 19 prohibition under 12 U.S.C. § 1829 disqualifies persons convicted of crimes involving dishonesty from participation in insured-depository-institution operations — a parallel consequence that follows the underlying criminal conviction rather than the TREC discipline, but operates within the same federal-state-administrative ecosystem.
Strategic considerations in TREC licensing defense
Defense strategy in TREC licensing matters coordinates criminal-administrative-civil exposure, document preservation, witness preparation, and informal-disposition negotiation — the goal at every stage is to preserve the licensee's livelihood while minimizing collateral cross-licensing consequences.
Coordinated criminal-administrative defense is the foundational requirement in any TREC matter that overlaps a parallel criminal investigation. The criminal disposition binds the administrative outcome through both the § 1101.652(a)(2) automatic-revocation trigger (for fraud-element felonies) and the collateral-estoppel application of the criminal factual record to the administrative contested-case hearing. Strategic charge-bargaining in the criminal case — pleading to a non-fraud-element offense, securing a deferred-prosecution agreement, or negotiating a misdemeanor disposition where the indictment alleged a felony — preserves the licensee's ability to defend the TREC matter on the broader discretionary grounds rather than facing automatic revocation. The criminal defense team and the TREC defense team must communicate continuously throughout the criminal proceeding.
Document preservation begins at the first sign of a TREC complaint. The licensee's transaction files, escrow records, agency-relationship disclosures, written communications with clients, listing agreements, sales contracts, and ledger records become the evidentiary foundation for every defense argument. Texas Occupations Code § 1101.553 requires licensees to maintain transaction records for four years; the TREC Investigation Division routinely subpoenas these records as the first step in any complaint review. The defense work coordinates a comprehensive document collection and preservation regime, conducts an internal review to identify favorable and unfavorable materials, and prepares the licensee's narrative response to the complaint with full attention to documentary support for each factual claim.
Witness preparation for the SOAH contested-case hearing follows trial-preparation principles familiar from criminal practice but adapted to the administrative-procedural environment. Witnesses include the licensee, the complaining client (typically a hostile witness), the TREC investigator, the sponsoring broker (in sales-agent cases) or sponsored agents (in broker § 1101.654 cases), transactional witnesses such as title-company representatives and appraisers, and character witnesses establishing the licensee's rehabilitation, professional standing, and continued fitness. The administrative-law-judge audience is a sophisticated professional decision-maker who has heard many similar cases — credibility, technical accuracy, and respect for procedural form matter materially to the outcome.
Informal-disposition negotiation with TREC Standards and Enforcement Services is the most consequential strategic decision in many cases. An informal disposition produces a permanent public-record disciplinary action but typically avoids license suspension or revocation; a SOAH contested-case proceeds to formal litigation with the licensee's license at stake. The risk-benefit analysis depends on the strength of the State's case, the licensee's exposure to cross-licensing consequences (NMLS, HUD LDP, parallel-regime impact), the availability of mitigation arguments, and the licensee's tolerance for protracted administrative litigation. Many cases resolve favorably at the informal-disposition stage through negotiated reprimands or fines that minimize cross-licensing impact while preserving the licensee's livelihood.
Post-discipline reinstatement under Texas Occupations Code § 1101.658 is the available remedy for a licensee whose license has been suspended or revoked. The statute permits an application for reinstatement after a specified waiting period (typically 2-5 years depending on the underlying violation), with the burden on the applicant to demonstrate rehabilitation, fitness, and absence of recurrence. Reinstatement applications track the Fitness Determination procedural framework with heightened evidentiary requirements. A well-developed reinstatement application includes documentation of compliance with all prior order terms, completion of additional ethics and trust-account education, letters of recommendation from professional and community sources, and a comprehensive narrative addressing the original violation and the applicant's rehabilitation. The reinstatement docket is the final stage of a TREC disciplinary lifecycle and frequently the most important phase for restoring the licensee's career.
