Dear colleagues Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office. I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US. Tell us Cheers Jacques
Awesome. I will now use the term freely. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
Greetings everyone, It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher ********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 2 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 3 <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>, 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>] Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology - California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 5 <https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)> ] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception - A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 7 <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/>, 8 <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.> ] The 2025 regulatory transfer - New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>, 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>, 9 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf>] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. - In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 10 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm>, 11 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 12 <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf> ] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciS... ********************************************* On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
Kristopher, This has been my understanding for as well. john Sent from my iPad
On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Greetings everyone,
It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher
********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] The 2025 regulatory transfer New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciS...
*********************************************
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni <gaspo at lmi.net> wrote:
Kristopher,
This has been my understanding for as well.
john
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Greetings everyone,
It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher
********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] The 2025 regulatory transfer New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciS...
*********************************************
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
Hello all, Well, I sent out a previous email and it seems it did not go through ot went to the wrong mailbox. Let me know if this goes through. I will copy-paste what I had already sent: << Bonjour Jacques and others, In this initial probe, I am sending out a brief post just to check whether the email invitation works. It was a pleasure to meet again in Paris for the homage to Jean-Michel. The question of what is required to work under the title of psychoanalyst should be gone through carefully, not mistaking, for example, policy with statutory law, or psychoanalysis with psychoanalytic therapy. This much said, I am not so sure email is the right forum. Let me know if this goes through, how, and when you would care to address this. Truly, Scully-Robert Groome>>
On Sep 28, 2025, at 4:03?PM, Jacques Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
So we definitely need to hear Robert's position. I know he is flying back to Berlin now. Robert tell us my friend! Jacques
On September 28, 2025 10:15:38 PM UTC, John Gasperoni <gaspo at lmi.net> wrote: Kristopher,
This has been my understanding for as well.
john
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Greetings everyone,
It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher
********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology ? California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". ? Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1, 5] The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception ? A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". ? Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2, 6, 7, 8] The 2025 regulatory transfer ? New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. ? Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3, 4, 9] Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts. ? In the case National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. ? The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6, 10, 11, 12] [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciS...
*********************************************
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote: Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst -- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other? I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license. But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork. I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us. Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons. Aviva On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Kristopher,
This has been my understanding for as well.
john
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Greetings everyone,
It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher
********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 2 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 3 <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>, 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>]
Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology
- California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 5 <https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)> ]
The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception
- A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 7 <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/>, 8 <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.> ]
The 2025 regulatory transfer
- New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>, 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>, 9 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf>]
Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts.
- In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 10 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm>, 11 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 12 <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf> ]
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciS...
*********************************************
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
This is important to me because in California or the US in general I am not able to get a degree or license in my own field. I can only obtain from the other something I don't want and that misrepresents me. On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 6:54?PM Aviva Euripides <euripides.aviva at gmail.com> wrote:
Then why defer to the misrepresentation on the part of the other?
I am aware that for financial reasons I practice under my license.
But I have added on my own description of my work - after my name and license information I have written the word Lacanalysis. I don't document like this for insurance based patients on billing paperwork.
I have recently switched from Lacanalysis to Topologos Lutecium Domain as here people can easily find us.
Is this illegal or unethical in some way? It seems wise to alert people to my/our work for a myriad of reasons.
Aviva
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025, 3:16?PM John Gasperoni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Kristopher,
This has been my understanding for as well.
john
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 28, 2025, at 1:49 PM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Greetings everyone,
It is wonderful to be back in the fold(s)! I am looking forward to this update while recommending caution due to the following existing information. BTW - not starting a debate nor taking any sides on this matter whatsoever, but I want all to be updated with the most current developments in CA regarding the term and practice of "psychoanalysis." -Kristopher
********************** In California, the Board of Psychology (BOP) protects against unlicensed psychoanalysis by defining it as a form of psychology, which requires state licensure. While a "research psychoanalyst" designation has existed, recent legislation transferred the regulation of this limited license to the BOP to better protect the public. [1 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 2 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 3 <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>, 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>]
Psychoanalysis as a form of psychology
- California's Business and Professions Code includes "psychoanalysis" under its definition of the "practice of psychology". - Under state law, anyone who represents themselves to the public as a psychoanalyst and receives a fee for services must be a licensed psychologist or meet other specified statutory criteria. [1 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 5 <https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)> ]
The "Research Psychoanalyst" exception
- A limited practice: For years, a special "research psychoanalyst" license was regulated by the California Medical Board. It allowed certain graduates of approved psychoanalytic institutes to practice on a limited basis, as an "adjunct to teaching, training, or research". - Restrictions: These individuals could not spend more than one-third of their professional time on fee-based services and had to primarily be engaged in teaching, training, or research. [2 <https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/>, 6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 7 <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/>, 8 <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.> ]
The 2025 regulatory transfer
- New oversight: Effective January 1, 2025, control of the Research Psychoanalyst Program was transferred from the Medical Board of California to the California Board of Psychology. - Consumer protection: The BOP's 2024?2028 strategic plan outlines the addition of research psychoanalysts to its regulated population. This move is intended to place all mental health practitioners under the oversight of a board specifically focused on psychological services, ensuring better public protection. [3 <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.>, 4 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml>, 9 <https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf>]
Legal challenges to the licensing scheme The BOP has successfully defended its licensing authority against legal challenges from psychoanalysts.
- In the case *National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. California Board of Psychology* (2000), a federal court rejected arguments that the licensing laws violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. - The court found that the state's regulation of mental health professions is a valid exercise of its power to protect the public health and safety. [6 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 10 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm>, 11 <https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm>, 12 <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciStatesBrief.pdf> ]
[1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/228/1043/478769/ [3] https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/ <https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensing/research-psychoanalyst/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20timeline%20for%20the%20transfer?,and%20the%20regulation%20of%20research%20psychoanalytic%20institutions.> [4] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/sb_815.shtml [5] https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I644487bc798e11d98c82a53fc8ac8757/National-Ass-n-for-Advancement-of-Psychoanalysis-v-California-Bd-of-Psychology?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) [6] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [7] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... [8] https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psy... <https://www.reddit.com/r/psychoanalysis/comments/1gpocdo/how_to_practice_psychoanalysis_in_california/#:~:text=It's%20true%2C%20in%20CA%20if%20you%20have,with%20aka%20training%20at%20an%20accredited%20institute.> [9] https://www.psychology.ca.gov/forms_pubs/strat_plan_24_28.pdf [10] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/NAAP_v_CA_brief.htm [11] https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/pro_lic/naap_v_ca.htm [12] https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/ChilesvSalazar_AmiciS...
*********************************************
On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 1:42?AM Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst < the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
Dear colleagues
Yesterday at a day to give a tribute to Jean-Michel Vappereau I had the pleasure to reconnect to Scully-Robert Groom, a colleague living partly in Berlin and Los Angeles. He gave me great legal information regarding the legal statute of psychoanalysis in the USA. I discovered that except for New York State and Massachusetts, the statute is similar to France's!! Anyone in the 48 other states can decide they work as psychoanalysts as a private practice. They can put a placard saying so in front of their office.
I have registered him on the lacanalyst mailing list. Robert can you be kind enough to explain the situation which is so seriously misunderstood by psychoanalysts in the US.
Tell us
Cheers
Jacques
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
-- The-lacanalyst mailing list The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
participants (5)
-
euripides.aviva＠gmail.com -
gaspo＠lmi.net -
jacsib＠lutecium.org -
kristopher＠serendipityhealingarts.com -
tate＠netwood.net